LogFAQs > #937614329

Corrik7 posted...

Some more good news on the antibody front.

https://thehill.com/changing-america/well-being/prevention-cures/493406-the-initial-results-from-californias-coronavirus

I read that paper and I would be cautious about taking it without a grain of salt; the samples they used were biased towards white women, and in an attempt to correct the bias for race, they reduced the count for white women and upped the counts for asians and hispanics, which were under-represented, which is not really a sensible bias to adjust for. They adjusted for biases in zip code and sex, which is complex (the zip code method is especially stupid because it now makes the assumption that the infection rate of all the different zip codes are uniform), and the crude adjustment measure they used isn't a great idea in this circumstance. The result was to go from an antibody raw count of 1.5%, to 2.81% of the population.

Additionally, it doesn't take into account that some people they tested may have started to develop symptoms later and then tested positive. Also, it misrepresents (by being vague) the results of other studies, such as the one that looked at the entire village of Robbio, which found an under-representation of about 10-fold and actually did have the entire population. The current infection-fatality rate in Robbio is somewhere in the 0.5-0.6% range, which is much higher than this paper posits.

Finally, I would be a little careful about papers from Dr Ioannidis, since this is the second one he's fired out into the wild before peer review and the other one was very flawed. The end of the paper also thanks anonymous donors of gifts so I'm REALLY skeptical of this guy

---

I'm am hungry I want some lasaga