Posted on 04/21/2020 8:23:55 AM PDT by Kaslin
A new study unveiled Monday from the University of Southern California (USC) with the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health discovered infections of the novel Wuhan coronavirus to be far more widespread with a lower fatality rate than initially thought.
The California researchers conducted rapid antibody testing of a representative sample of adults and found that approximately 2.8 to 5.6 percent of L.A. County’s adult population already had coronavirus antibodies present, translating to 221,000 to 442,000 past-infected people. The new estimate dwarfs the nearly 8,000 cases that had been reported at the time the study took place April 10-11. There are now nearly 14,000 confirmed cases of the virus and more than 600 deaths officially reported in the county as of this writing, according to L.A. County Department of Public Health.
“We haven’t known the true extent of COVID-19 infections in our community because we have only tested people with symptoms, and the availability of tests has been limited,” said the study’s lead investigator and USC Professor Neeraj Sood in a statement. “The estimates also suggest that we might have to recalibrate disease prediction models and rethink public health strategies.”
The results of the USC-LA study have yet to be peer-reviewed but illustrate that the new coronavirus is far more prevalent throughout communities than what’s being reported. as new infections continue to sprout from asymptomatic individuals.
“These results indicate that many persons may have been unknowingly infected and at risk of transmitting the virus to others,” said Dr. Barbara Ferrer who serves as the director of the L.A. County Department of Public Health.
Monday’s study echoes the findings of Stanford researchers who came to a similar conclusion last week after conducting antibody testing further north in Santa Clara County.
Stanford scientists estimate that between 48,000 to 81,000 people had been infected with the virus in the county by early-April, a 50-85-fold increase in the number of publicly confirmed cases with 100 deaths projected by April 22. That lands the fatality rate at 0.12 to 0.2 percent.
While the Stanford study also remains in pre-print awaiting peer-review, the research provides an important glimpse into the true reach of the virus having likely infected far more than publicly known due to lack of testing.
Panic over the novel virus prompted 42 states to issue shelter-in-place orders keeping at least 316 million people home as early estimates depicted a bleak future of overwhelmed hospitals struggling to handle the surging caseload of sick patients. As extreme social distancing measures have successfully flattened the curve in many states, some have announced they will begin easing lockdowns with certain conditions to keep some restrictions in place. The White House released federal non-binding guidelines last week on reopening the American economy. More than 22 million Americans filed for unemployment in just over four weeks.
Governors in Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Tennessee, Texas, and South Carolina, each declared they would be lifting stay home orders either on or before April 30th with limited reopenings of local businesses.
Oh dear. The Science wasn’t Settled again.
This one appeared to flummox Dr. Birx last evening.
If the fatality rate is that low, how do you explain the number of fatalities in New York City? There would need to be more people infected in the city than there are total people in the city.
Something is wrong here. Selection bias? Statistical extrapolations gone wrong? I don’t know, but something.
Hablas espanol?
What is the accuracy of this test? What percentage of false positives and false negatives does it produce?
I watched it. I didn’t see Dr Fauci though. I wonder if President Trump told him he wasn’t needed. I suppose we’ll find out later.
Because what we were told, “This antibody test is VERY specific for COVID-19 and doesn’t’ take cross react with any other Coronavirus at all.” That was last night. This morning we discover this contention was pure horse crap. Three different tests, two with Specifities of 83% and 87%. IOW, more of the “Blizzard of BS” people are being subjected to.
Pathetic is what is was.
“Selection bias? Statistical extrapolations gone wrong?”
the answer could be as simple as attributing deaths to Covid that shouldn’t be in that category. We know there is financial incentive to fudge the reports.
What is the accuracy of this test? What percentage of false positives and false negatives does it produce?
++++
That needs to be looked into. From what I read there seems to be a wide variation in the accuracy of antibody testing. There are always false positives. Hopefully a small number in this case.
As someone who is very sympathetic to the idea of “opening” up the economy (because I don’t think we can afford to prop it up infinitely with federal debt), I love the idea that 40 million people have already been infected, have antibodies, and should be free to move out of the cabin, along with all the people currently testing negative, but......
It has to actually be true! 30% rate of false negatives (i.e. the number of positive tests understates infections by 1/3) means that even in the optimistic case of readily available tests, we’re going to see more outbreaks.
Vulnerable populations need to stay safe well into the future, at a minimum.
Ah we hadn’t heard from the paranoid conspiracy theory crowd yet on this thread! Welcome, Comrade!
Over reporting by NYC to get federal health care money?
1. The tests have a false positive rate supposedly 2/371 or .5% - this data is from the manufacturer of the test
2. This sample was about 800 people, the one in Santa Clara was 4,000 people
3. NYC has 13,683 Covid deaths already which is .15% of the population of 9,000,000. This is the lowest possible infection mortality rate assumed every single person in NYC is infected.
243047 people have been tested and 132,467 tested positive,
Only people with symptoms are being tested in NYC and only 54% of those with symptoms are positive. The rate of infection for those without symptoms is obviously lower than the rate of infection in those with symptoms of the disease.
If 54% of the entire city is infected (implausibly high) then the infection fatality rate is .28% (1.5%/.54)
https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/doh/downloads/pdf/imm/covid-19-data-map-04202020-1.pdf
The quoted death rate of .1% for seasonal flu is the number of deaths over the number of SYMPTOMATIC flu cases. Those without symptoms are not part of the denominator. It is estimated (see link below) that 75% of regular flu cases show no symptoms. This brings the infection fatality rate for regular flu from .1% to .025% if you count infected people instead of just symptomatic people. Covid19 is at least 10 times deadlier than the flu, you can distort the numbers however you want, you can believe whatever you want, but no one can make a plausible argument that Covid19 isn’t 10 times deadlier than the seasonal flu, no matter how hard they try.
https://www.nhs.uk/news/medical-practice/three-quarters-of-people-with-flu-have-no-symptoms/
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/2018-2019.html
“These results indicate that many persons may have been unknowingly infected and at risk of transmitting the virus to others,”
Like, we didn’t know about it, and spread the disease. Imagine that!
They make it sound like they’re sure these people are not currently or soon to be infectious, but these don’t sound like the brightest bulbs, either.
I am not sure I understand the allure of the “guess that denominator” game. This disease is killing those that I think medical “experts” would think are at risk to such a disease, as it is known. It may be killing more of that group, as prolonged ventilation is being applied with little success.
So, why all the fun guessing games? I think we know the demographic break-down of the population and the number, therefore, at risk. Barring improvement in treatment, we know the number of the dead, then, if this thing spreads freely.
Of course, if we talk about it long enough, this thing may be able to be killed off by the approaching Summer. Some of the “dead” could have a bit of a reprieve.
Note there is no link to the study in the Federalist article or in the press release which the Federalist provides a link to. The study was conducted by a professor of public policy at USC, he’s not even a doctor.
They find what they want to find, the testing is rigged that way. In florida we have been testing people with symptoms and that comes in at 10% positive state wide. As a percentage of the population, not only those who have symptoms, we have come up with a massive (s) 27500 instances. In a state of 20million, that is .13% Of those who tested positive, we have about 2% deaths. IOW, so now we have this so called huge percentage of those who show no symptoms who are positive. Well now, unless it is some kind of delayed reactive virus, so what?? IMO, these numbers support a conclusion that .004% of the population has died from Corona without even considering most of those were aged and in poor health.
I think a recent study showed that type A blood types are more susceptible verses 0s which were least. Why not quarantine every type A blood with underlying conditions and over say 60 and be done with it, open the damn economy and if that does not work, then we are done anyway so lets cut to the chase.
Agreed. This is serious business, regardless of what the FluBros say.
Wow. Even a 40 fold increase in my county will mean full saturation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.