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.
I asked my doctor today if I could get the anti body test but he refused on grounds he "wasn't sure" it was "accurate" -- right. Just doesn't want me to get proof I had it.
There are indications that it isn't accurate. It's not a conspiracy.
There are indications that it isn't accurate. It's not a conspiracy.
The antibody tests aren't accurate when performed on people living in a low-prevalence area. That's the problem with them; right now, most of America is a low-prevalence area, so you really can't conclude an individual's positive results is a true positive if they live in such an area. It's more likely to be a false positive than a real one.
The antibody tests aren't accurate when performed on people living in a low-prevalence area. That's the problem with them; right now, most of America is a low-prevalence area, so you really can't conclude an individual's positive results is a true positive if they live in such an area. It's more likely to be a false positive than a real one.
Based on the antibody testing results that continuing to flow in that are consistently demonstrating that a great many more people have already gotten this disease and gotten over it than the numbers used to formulate our current policies and estimates projected. It divides the deaths by a much larger population of people who have been infected by the virus than what was expected or known until just the last week or so.
But of course many of the usual suspects would rather ignore all of that in order to be able to continue promoting their alarmist, fear mongering narrative.
But you are wrong when you claim that Trump bases his policies on that number. The 2 million dead is based on the estimates that antibody testing confirms. Its not based on the number of confirmed cases (which is lower than the actual numbers of course).
The only reason we need government mandates is because of idiots who won’t social distance on their own. Examples are spring breakers and looney right wing protesters.
The antibody tests aren't accurate when performed on people living in a low-prevalence area. That's the problem with them; right now, most of America is a low-prevalence area, so you really can't conclude an individual's positive results is a true positive if they live in such an area. It's more likely to be a false positive than a real one.
Based on the antibody testing results that continuing to flow in that are consistently demonstrating that a great many more people have already gotten this disease and gotten over it than the numbers used to formulate our current policies and estimates projected. It divides the deaths by a much larger population of people who have been infected by the virus than what was expected or known until just the last week or so.
But of course many of the usual suspects would rather ignore all of that in order to be able to continue promoting their alarmist, fear mongering narrative.
Whatever the final death rate turns out to be reducing infections by 75 % will reduce deaths by approximately the same in the short run.
Yes, the lower the better in the long run. Just got to live to see the long run.
It was mostly minorities in NYC who carry antibodies. White people had less than 10%. Out side of NYC area, less than 4% did. It looks like the white people and the country folk are the most vulnerable and will be suffering more as the restrictions come off.
Minorities, blacks specifically, have been over representative in the fatality rates.
Whatever the final death rate turns out to be reducing infections by 75 % will reduce deaths by approximately the same.
Except the "Flattening the curve" strategy is not intended to reduce the number of infections to any material degree. Instead, it just postpones them until later, extending this whole epidemic out over a longer period of time.
As you know very well, the purpose of the "social distancing" tactics and the "Flattening the curve" strategy have been to reduce the pressure on hospital resources, and not to keep people from ultimately getting infected.
But now we find out that a great deal more people have gotten infected already than the medical "experts" have predicted or have been telling us. Which means the deaths are divided by a much larger denominator to calculate the death rate, which is therefore much smaller than what has been predicted. And that is good news to anyone who is not basically a psychopath.
It's an inherent problem with all laboratory tests (not just antibody tests), just to varying degrees. Testing in a very low incidence population leads to a high number of false positives. Testing in a very high incidence population leads to high levels of false negatives. The problem can't be completely avoided, as no test is both 100% sensitive and 100% specific (which is what would be needed to avoid the problem). The closer a test can get to 100% sensitive and 100% specific, the smaller the problem - but it's still there.
The first-generation antibody tests were pretty inaccurate, by laboratory testing standards. The newer ones are quite a bit better, but still in need of more long-term validation of their claimed sensitivity and specificity.
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.
