Current Events > Random sampling test shows coronavirus more widespread and less deadly

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/random-sampling-test-shows-coronavirus-more-widespread-and-less-deadly-than-previously-thought-study

A coronavirus antibody test conducted by Stanford University scientists concluded that the infection is both more common than previously thought and possesses a lower fatality rate than what current data suggest.

"Our data implys that, by April 1 (three days prior to the end of our survey) between 48,000 and 81,000 people had been infected in Santa Clara County. The reported number of confirmed positive cases in the county on April 1 was 956, 50-85-fold lower than the number of infections predicted by this study," their study reads.
The study, which tested 3,330 people, adjusting for zip code, sex, and race/ethnicity, concludes that the prevalence of coronavirus antibodies in Santa Clara County, California, is more widespread than the number of confirmed cases indicates.

After adjusting for population and test performance characteristics, we estimate that the seroprevalence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in Santa Clara County is between 2.49% and 4.16%, with uncertainty bounds ranging from 1.80% (lower uncertainty bound of the lowest estimate), up to 5.70% (upper uncertainty bound of the highest estimate), the study said.

Coronavirus random sampling study from Stanford, Fox Newss Lisa Boothe said on Twitter in response to the study. They found the infection is 50-85 x more common than previously thought & fatality rate accordingly 50-85 x lower than the crude numbers would suggest.

these studies have been done in Germany and New York as well, both leading to the same type of conclusion.


---

That's great news.

---

I've been hoping a whole bunch of us have immunity already.


---

s0nicfan posted...

That's great news.

---

Reopen world?

---

This thing had been in the usa for at least a year

---

Good news overall but doesn't help much in the near term

---

hasnt been peer reviewed, has been vocally criticized by the science community and statisticians, and apparently the group was previously questioning stay at home orders before they even started the study

https://www.wired.com/story/new-covid-19-antibody-study-results-are-in-are-they-right/

https://tinyurl.com/yb9tgdgv

---

bump

---

I don't believe anything Fox News says.

---

ultimate reaver posted...

hasnt been peer reviewed, has been vocally criticized by the science community and statisticians, and apparently the group was previously questioning stay at home orders before they even started the study

https://www.wired.com/story/new-covid-19-antibody-study-results-are-in-are-they-right/

https://tinyurl.com/yb9tgdgv

These above points TC

Awesome posted...

This thing had been in the usa for at least a year

Yeah its been here for a year but hospitals only now just become over run. Makes total sense.

lol at all this agenda pushing shit. How can people not look past political bullshit and accept reality?

Sewage posted...

Yeah its been here for a year but hospitals only now just become over run. Makes total sense.

lol at all this agenda pushing s***. How can people not look past political bulls*** and accept reality?

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9

"It is possible that a progenitor of SARS-CoV-2 jumped into humans, acquiring the genomic features described above through adaptation during undetected human-to-human transmission. Once acquired, these adaptations would enable the pandemic to take off and produce a sufficiently large cluster of cases to trigger the surveillance system that detected it1,2.
All SARS-CoV-2 genomes sequenced so far have the genomic features described above and are thus derived from a common ancestor that had them too. The presence in pangolins of an RBD very similar to that of SARS-CoV-2 means that we can infer this was also probably in the virus that jumped to humans. This leaves the insertion of polybasic cleavage site to occur during human-to-human transmission.
Estimates of the timing of the most recent common ancestor of SARS-CoV-2 made with current sequence data point to emergence of the virus in late November 2019 to early December 201923, compatible with the earliest retrospectively confirmed cases24. Hence, this scenario presumes a period of unrecognized transmission in humans between the initial zoonotic event and the acquisition of the polybasic cleavage site. Sufficient opportunity could have arisen if there had been many prior zoonotic events that produced short chains of human-to-human transmission over an extended period."

Then again, I'm in the camp where it came from a lab.

That has nothing to do with whether or not it could have been in the US "for a year" and it literally tells you why in the parts you didn't bold that you blatantly ignored.
---