Coronavirus antibody testing finds Bay Area infections may be 85 times higher than reported: researchers

[Dashinka 24,743]

Coronavirus antibody testing finds Bay Area infections may be 85 times higher than reported: researchers

A team of researchers in California found that the number of coronaviruses cases in one county may actually be up to 85 times higher than the what health officials have tallied, and say their data may help better estimate the virus’ true fatality rate.

Earlier this month, Stanford University-led researchers tested 3,330 adults and children in Santa Clara County, who were recruited using Facebook ads, for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies and found that the population prevalence of COVID-19 in Santa Clara ranged from 2.49 percent to 4.16 percent.
 

“The most important implication of these findings is that the number of infections is much greater than the reported number of cases,” the researchers wrote, in a yet-to-be peer-reviewed study. “Our data imply 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 infectious predicted by this study.” 

Asymptomatic carriers of coronavirus have long been a concern for health officials and others who are looking to get a grasp on how prevalent the virus is. The researchers also concluded that detecting previously unreported coronavirus cases could also lead to a “better estimation of the fatality rate from COVID-19.”
 

https://www.foxnews.com/health/coronavirus-antibody-testing-finds-bay-area-infections-85-times-higher-reported-researchers

 

[Dashinka 24,743]

Of course more testing is needed, but even if we take the lower number of 50 times more infections than reported, it puts the mortality rate somewhere in the 0.1% range.

[TBoneTX 45,963]

Fully justifying the hosing of businesses and lives everywhere.

[Dashinka 24,743]

The governors say they will use data to make decisions.  I wonder how many will ignore this data, and the CDC data on overall weekly deaths.

[OriZ 3,157]

I posted this in another thread about 8 hours ago, and we have talked about it in here several times before...that the real mortality rate is probably much lower, and number of cases much higher. 

 

None of it changes the fact that this has attacked hard and fast, which is the main reason for the measures taken, in order to prevent overwhelming the system..Even if the real mortality rate of covid-19 is only twice that of the flu, we could have expected alot more people to get sick much faster, not only overwhelming the system but actually ending up with a larger number of casualties, due to the fact it simply spreads easier.

 

Also it's important to remember this is only one city. Definitely looking forward to seeing more studies. Even if we assume it is accurate, that means at least 100 million people. So how many more beyond that would it be without any of the measures taken?

Edited April 18, 2020 by OriZ

[Dashinka 24,743]

5 hours ago, OriZ said:

I posted this in another thread about 8 hours ago, and we have talked about it in here several times before...that the real mortality rate is probably much lower, and number of cases much higher. 

 

None of it changes the fact that this has attacked hard and fast, which is the main reason for the measures taken, in order to prevent overwhelming the system..Even if the real mortality rate of covid-19 is only twice that of the flu, we could have expected alot more people to get sick much faster, not only overwhelming the system but actually ending up with a larger number of casualties, due to the fact it simply spreads easier.

 

Also it's important to remember this is only one city. Definitely looking forward to seeing more studies. Even if we assume it is accurate, that means at least 100 million people. So how many more beyond that would it be without any of the measures taken?

The point is will this data be considered?  For a county like this to show 50 to 85 times more infections than identified seems to indicate this virus is not as fatal as the media would like us to believe.  At the higher end, the mortality would be even lower than the seasonal flu, and even a more conservative calculation puts the mortality in the same ballpark.  Yes, there was a need to take some measures as information was learned, and more study is needed, but this data should be considered along with the models (UW just did another revision downward) in easing the draconian restrictions imposed, and move it more toward guidance. 

[Dashinka 24,743]

Another study done in Germany.  Probably not quite as representative as the Santa Clara County study.

 

News of the Santa Clara analysis follows preliminary results from a similar study in Germany, released on 9 April, that tested some 500 people in a village of more than 12,000 and found that one in seven had been infected with SARS-CoV-2. The German team also looked for active infections, using diagnostic tests based on the polymerase chain reaction, and when those figures were combined with those who had antibodies, estimate that the town’s overall infection rate was 15%.

 

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01095-0?error=cookies_not_supported&code=61f52ce9-103d-4156-bedf-1be97b2eddf5

[Dashinka 24,743]

Gov. Andrew Cuomo says New York will roll out antibody testing in ‘aggressive way’ this week
 

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/19/gov-cuomo-says-new-york-will-roll-out-antibody-testing-in-aggressive-way-this-week.html

 

[Steeleballz 7,550]

3 hours ago, Dashinka said:

Gov. Andrew Cuomo says New York will roll out antibody testing in ‘aggressive way’ this week
 

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/19/gov-cuomo-says-new-york-will-roll-out-antibody-testing-in-aggressive-way-this-week.html

 

 

   It's a good idea do this somewhere where it they have had a fairly large outbreak. Washington would also be a good choice, because we had the first outbreak and likely a lot more asymptomatic spread initially before social distancing policies were initiated. It would give a better idea of the real numbers for asymptomatic positive results. 

 

   

[Dashinka 24,743]

20 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   It's a good idea do this somewhere where it they have had a fairly large outbreak. Washington would also be a good choice, because we had the first outbreak and likely a lot more asymptomatic spread initially before social distancing policies were initiated. It would give a better idea of the real numbers for asymptomatic positive results. 

 

   

Wasn’t CA also one of the first places where it showed up in both the Bay Area and LA?  I think Chicago was also pretty early on.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

12 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

Wasn’t CA also one of the first places where it showed up in both the Bay Area and LA?  I think Chicago was also pretty early on.

 

   I think CA was ahead of the curve on social distancing, which should translate into less people exposed. The most accurate statistical model for gathering asymptomatic numbers would need to be done where exposure rates were as high as possible. Otherwise it's hard to separate and extrapolate the data for how many people were exposed and asymptomatic vs how many were isolated and not exposed. Was it 50:50 or 80:20? Makes a difference. 

 

   It appears NY had way more people exposed than CA before they got distancing measures in place, so I'm expecting the number of background positive results to be even higher than other areas that had less transmission. We'll see.  

[Dashinka 24,743]

8 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   I think CA was ahead of the curve on social distancing, which should translate into less people exposed. The most accurate statistical model for gathering asymptomatic numbers would need to be done where exposure rates were as high as possible. Otherwise it's hard to separate and extrapolate the data for how many people were exposed and asymptomatic vs how many were isolated and not exposed. Was it 50:50 or 80:20? Makes a difference. 

 

   It appears NY had way more people exposed than CA before they got distancing measures in place, so I'm expecting the number of background positive results to be even higher than other areas that had less transmission. We'll see.  

If you believe the dates on the UW model, CA and WA were in similar positions from a physical distancing guidelines standpoint.  Regardless, it will be interesting to see the NY study, if it is anywhere near what was done in Santa Clara County, it will really lend weight to opening up.

[OriZ 3,157]

I still content weather must have had an impact on the relatively mild way it has affected CA. Based on every study I've read as well as my own interpretation of the numbers in different places in the world, it seems like a 20 degree difference(say from an average of around 40, to an average of around 60), => 75% reduction in the pace of the spread, and potentially even severity.

Edited April 21, 2020 by OriZ

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

11 minutes ago, OriZ said:

I still content weather must have had an impact on the relatively mild way it has affected CA. Based on every study I've read as well as my own interpretation of the numbers in different places in the world, it seems like a 20 degree difference(say from an average of around 40, to an average of around 60), => 75% reduction in the pace of the spread, and potentially even severity.

Can't agree with you.  CA has PERFECT weather for a virus to live in.  Look at AZ, NV.  And why are MT, AK, and WY so low?

[OriZ 3,157]

35 minutes ago, Voice of Reason said:

Can't agree with you.  CA has PERFECT weather for a virus to live in.  Look at AZ, NV.  And why are MT, AK, and WY so low?

Because it's not the only factor. Saying it doesn't spread as fast in warmer places is not the same as saying it necessarily spreads the fastest in all colder places. More rural, less populated and less crowded areas aren't going to see the same spread. I posted the breakdown here before that clearly showed that the colder 29 states, which have about the same population as the warmer 21 states, had almost 80% of the infections. If you look around the world you see the same thing - actually even more pronounced, about 90%+ of cases are in the northern hemisphere.

Edited April 21, 2020 by OriZ