Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Please just summarize the results and the source. Thanks.
Videos are just not an efficient way to get info here.
Addressing COVID-19 is a pressing health and social concern. To date, many epidemic projections and policies addressing COVID-19 have been designed without seroprevalence data to inform epidemic parameters. We measured the seroprevalence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in Santa Clara County.
Methods
On 4/3-4/4, 2020, we tested county residents for antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 using a lateral flow immunoassay. Participants were recruited using Facebook ads targeting a representative sample of the county by demographic and geographic characteristics. We report the prevalence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in a sample of 3,330 people, adjusting for zip code, sex, and race/ethnicity. We also adjust for test performance characteristics using 3 different estimates: (i) the test manufacturer's data, (ii) a sample of 37 positive and 30 negative controls tested at Stanford, and (iii) a combination of both.
Results
The unadjusted prevalence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in Santa Clara County was 1.5% (exact binomial 95CI 1.11-1.97%), and the population-weighted prevalence was 2.81% (95CI 2.24-3.37%). Under the three scenarios for test performance characteristics, the population prevalence of COVID-19 in Santa Clara ranged from 2.49% (95CI 1.80-3.17%) to 4.16% (2.58-5.70%). These prevalence estimates represent a range between 48,000 and 81,000 people infected in Santa Clara County by early April, 50-85-fold more than the number of confirmed cases.
Conclusions
The population prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in Santa Clara County implies that the infection is much more widespread than indicated by the number of confirmed cases. Population prevalence estimates can now be used to calibrate epidemic and mortality projections.
Addressing COVID-19 is a pressing health and social concern. To date, many epidemic projections and policies addressing COVID-19 have been designed without seroprevalence data to inform epidemic parameters. We measured the seroprevalence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in Santa Clara County.
Methods
On 4/3-4/4, 2020, we tested county residents for antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 using a lateral flow immunoassay. Participants were recruited using Facebook ads targeting a representative sample of the county by demographic and geographic characteristics. We report the prevalence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in a sample of 3,330 people, adjusting for zip code, sex, and race/ethnicity. We also adjust for test performance characteristics using 3 different estimates: (i) the test manufacturer's data, (ii) a sample of 37 positive and 30 negative controls tested at Stanford, and (iii) a combination of both.
Results
The unadjusted prevalence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in Santa Clara County was 1.5% (exact binomial 95CI 1.11-1.97%), and the population-weighted prevalence was 2.81% (95CI 2.24-3.37%). Under the three scenarios for test performance characteristics, the population prevalence of COVID-19 in Santa Clara ranged from 2.49% (95CI 1.80-3.17%) to 4.16% (2.58-5.70%). These prevalence estimates represent a range between 48,000 and 81,000 people infected in Santa Clara County by early April, 50-85-fold more than the number of confirmed cases.
Conclusions
The population prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in Santa Clara County implies that the infection is much more widespread than indicated by the number of confirmed cases. Population prevalence estimates can now be used to calibrate epidemic and mortality projections.
Thanks.
I am not sure how representative the sample is. Not everyone does FB, and the people who volunteered may have been those concerned about exposure.
Come to find, Switzerland has research group on propaganda. Interesting group - and results - for all kinds of propaganda related issues.
Here's there EXTENSIVE review of various studies on COVID.
Long read but well worth it
I am not sure how representative the sample is. Not everyone does FB, and the people who volunteered may have been those concerned about exposure.
Need more data!
It's like the political pollsters are super happy because a lot of people are home and bored enough to answer their polling questions..... then they had to question how valid the polls results are because it is a certain demographic on the type of people who can stay home.... so they like how easy it is, but not how skewed the results are.
__________________ ____________________________________________
My posts as a Mod will always be in red.
Be sure to review Terms of Service: TOS
And check this out: FAQ
Moderator: Relationships Forum / Hawaii Forum / Dogs / Pets / Current Events
There is a very good possibility that this was a chimera that then accidentally got out of a lab in Wuhan. There is nothing conspiratorial about that - what would be the conspiracy is China's attempts to cover that up.
Exactly. And wasn't this lab not at the highest level of security? The idea that viruses can't at time leak from labs especially that have research animals I find hard to accept. Accidents and mishaps happen even at the most secure facilities. The Titanic was unsinkable. Nuclear power plants could not leak uranium. Oil rigs are secure even in hurricanes... There will be mishaps
Addressing COVID-19 is a pressing health and social concern. To date, many epidemic projections and policies addressing COVID-19 have been designed without seroprevalence data to inform epidemic parameters. We measured the seroprevalence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in Santa Clara County.
Methods
On 4/3-4/4, 2020, we tested county residents for antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 using a lateral flow immunoassay. Participants were recruited using Facebook ads targeting a representative sample of the county by demographic and geographic characteristics. We report the prevalence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in a sample of 3,330 people, adjusting for zip code, sex, and race/ethnicity. We also adjust for test performance characteristics using 3 different estimates: (i) the test manufacturer's data, (ii) a sample of 37 positive and 30 negative controls tested at Stanford, and (iii) a combination of both.
Results
The unadjusted prevalence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in Santa Clara County was 1.5% (exact binomial 95CI 1.11-1.97%), and the population-weighted prevalence was 2.81% (95CI 2.24-3.37%). Under the three scenarios for test performance characteristics, the population prevalence of COVID-19 in Santa Clara ranged from 2.49% (95CI 1.80-3.17%) to 4.16% (2.58-5.70%). These prevalence estimates represent a range between 48,000 and 81,000 people infected in Santa Clara County by early April, 50-85-fold more than the number of confirmed cases.
Conclusions
The population prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in Santa Clara County implies that the infection is much more widespread than indicated by the number of confirmed cases. Population prevalence estimates can now be used to calibrate epidemic and mortality projections.
I still question how FB users can be representative, unless everyone in Santa Clara County is on FB. In addition, those who volunteered may have wanted to be tested because of suspicion of exposure.
I still question how FB users can be representative, unless everyone in Santa Clara County is on FB. In addition, those who volunteered may have wanted to be tested because of suspicion of exposure.
There definitely was some selection bias there, a better way would have been to go to 30 cities/areas in that county and test 110 random people or 20 cities/areas and test 165 random people or 10 cities/areas and test 330 random people.
04-19-2020, 02:08 PM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by james112
Exactly. And wasn't this lab not at the highest level of security? The idea that viruses can't at time leak from labs especially that have research animals I find hard to accept. Accidents and mishaps happen even at the most secure facilities. The Titanic was unsinkable. Nuclear power plants could not leak uranium. Oil rigs are secure even in hurricanes... There will be mishaps
No doubt! There has been plenty of breaches regarding protocol in labs. Everybody all ready know bad things are not supposed to happen but welcome to reality folks - S*&T does happen.
Oh and it did not necessarily have to come from a level 4 lab depending on the pseudovirus procedures they were/might have been utilizing like in the 2007 chimera research.
Shiloh1 - Why don't you stop pushing the conspiracy theories?
Who made you the authority on what science can be discussed here?
You only want to talk about the science that fits your narrative, while there is plenty of science that refutes it. It has already been said that peer review of COVID research isn't possible at this time. What makes your position the only valid science to be discussed?
That's not science. That's not how it works. If science isn't continually challenged, we would end up with the equivalent of the flat earth narrative. Science fiction.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sober research from Switzerland
but welcome to reality folks - S*&T does happen. 
