COVID19: Social Distancing might last to 2022

[deonb]

Santa Clara County, CA tested 3,300 residents for the presence of antibodies.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.14.20062463v1

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.14.20062463v1.full.pdf+html

>>>
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.
<<<

Unfortunately it’s a really terrible study. The test they use has a 1.5% CI. And they detected a 1.5% positive rate...

So it means precisely nothing. Unfortunately.

You can use this results to justify both a CFR of 0% and one of 100%.

 

[Matthew]

You can use this results to justify both a CFR of 0% and one of 100%.

We'll see which news outlets pick which end of the scale.

 

[Tantalum]

The comment in the last 30 seconds is significant. If we learn there are more infections than we're currently aware, the numbers will change. I think its very likely there are far more infections than we're currently aware of.

An article just came out that shows that most of the people who tested positive on that aircraft carrier are asymptomatic, apparently they tested almost every single person on that ship.. something like 4800 people

 

[denverpilot]

An article just came out that shows that most of the people who tested positive on that aircraft carrier are asymptomatic, apparently they tested almost every single person on that ship.. something like 4800 people

So you’re saying all the Captain Hero Jesus Walking on Water for his Men, articles ... will be disappearing now?

I know. I shouldn’t have said it. I just tempered all that initial media stuff about that with a very heavy shake of salt.

Plus kinda sounding like the leak wasn’t at the boat, anyway... with the latest news of who he sent the memos to. LOL.

Dad would have laughed and shook his head and said, “Navy...”

 

[Juliet Hotel]

An article just came out that shows that most of the people who tested positive on that aircraft carrier are asymptomatic, apparently they tested almost every single person on that ship.. something like 4800 people

4800 hundred elisted sailors, i.e. young and in shape with very little in the way of comorbidities. Interesting stat, but not exactly a sample set that's representative of the general population.

 

[Tantalum]

4800 hundred elisted sailors, i.e. young and in shape with very little in the way of comorbidities. Interesting stat, but not exactly a sample set that's representative of the general population.

I don't think you can use it show fatality.. true, but there could be some insight into the talked-about-though-not-totally-known prospect of this thing potentially passing right through someone without showing any symptoms

Imagine if we found out that 100M US citizens already had this, and just didn't know about it.. I wonder if that's part of the thing that antibody testing will find out

So you’re saying all the Captain Hero Jesus Walking on Water for his Men, articles ... will be disappearing now?

For my own sanity I'm actively avoiding as much media as possible.. but I do tune in every day for the WH briefing.. mainly because I want the actual direct story, not what's someone version of the retelling is. Having very little insight into military protocol I must say though (A) I would think it obvious (for a litany of reasons) that you would not want to broadcast to the world your ship and crew's health state and (B) why other channels weren't used to escalate your situation

Granted, if the existing channels don't work, and your situation is dire, and this is a new disease we know little about and he's scared 4/100 of his crew will die while the rest are in bed sick and they're not battle ready, then I can also understand the need to "take matters into your own hands" of sorts

 

[denverpilot]

For my own sanity I'm actively avoiding as much media as possible.. but I do tune in every day for the WH briefing.. mainly because I want the actual direct story, not what's someone version of the retelling is.

As far as the dear Captain goes, I’ve been hashing that one out elsewhere since it’s too political for here, but yeah... all sorts of things we will NEVER know until I’m very old or dead on that one.

Media, I’ve been on a strict diet for a few years now of the top of the hour RADIO news once a day. Lasts 5 minutes, has a forced get-to-the-point timing challenge, and you’ll rarely miss anything truly important. Doesn’t even matter which political flavor of channel. They’ll put 30 seconds or less of their spin in it because they’re time limited.

Other stuff leaks through via social media but I’m fully aware ALL of that is algorithm driven to match whatever some software engineer thinks my taste in “news” is. And even doing a search via a single search engine like Google is filtered the same way.

In all, radio news on stations that don’t do 24/7 news is a fairly good approximation of what we had naturally with newspaper “front pages” when most of society didn’t have time for constant political “news” 24/7 or even had articles on page two that were all local and more interesting and useful to us all.

 

[Juliet Hotel]

I don't think you can use it show fatality.. true, but there could be some insight into the talked-about-though-not-totally-known prospect of this thing potentially passing right through someone without showing any symptoms

I get that. But again, we're talking about a young and in shape sample set. There is no way to know at this point if we will the same ratio of asymptomatic positives in the general population.

Imagine if we found out that 100M US citizens already had this, and just didn't know about it.. I wonder if that's part of the thing that antibody testing will find out

I think that's exactly what antibody testing aims to find out. And I think it would be glorious if we found out 100M citizens have already been infected and didn't know it.

 

[IK04]

Just now there is a bunch of numbers displaying on the screen.

US cases: 686,991
US Deaths: 32,232
US Recovered: 58,431

Those are useless numbers and don't reflect those without symptoms, or those who never knew they had it earlier this year.

They are just posting BS numbers to shut up the inquisitors...

 

[Palmpilot]

Please note that my suggested policy involves removing the coercions. So that would be no laws requiring people to do things regarding Covid-19 they do not otherwise wish to do.

So big difference in coercion level between my proposal and what is presently being done.

Practically, in the long run, I think there is very good evidence that lack of coercion in the absence of imminent threat results in better outcomes for everyone, even if that might be difficult to predict in a particular case. So we should default to lack of coercion absent clear evidence of an imminent threat.

But at that level, we are drifting into politics, so we best discuss that in another forum if you want.

You seem to be assuming that there isn't an imminent threat.

 

[Palmpilot]

Unfortunately it’s a really terrible study. The test they use has a 1.5% CI. And they detected a 1.5% positive rate...

So it means precisely nothing. Unfortunately.

You can use this results to justify both a CFR of 0% and one of 100%.

Since I live in Santa Clara County, I would REALLY like to know what "CI" means!

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

You seem to be assuming that there isn't an imminent threat.

No I am not assuming that, but that clearly is the primary question with an epidemic like this.

I would submit that the present data available do not strongly support the idea that a person of unknown SARS Cov-2 status presents an imminent threat of causing serious injury or death to the average person in their casual, possibly unchosen, interactions on the street or other public places.

I would also say that the imminent threat should be very clear to justify the use of coercion.

The present data fail to meet that standard.

Chosen interactions in non-public places don’t matter for this sort of evaluation, so bars and restaurants don’t matter. There is also the fact that the purported victim can take much more peaceful measures to protect themselves on the street, such as traveling only in cars or wearing a mask, rather than coercing others to not be in a public place.

 

[deonb]

Since I live in Santa Clara County, I would REALLY like to know what "CI" means!

Confidence Interval. So for example if they reported a value of 10%, with a CI of 1.5%, any value from 8.5% to 11.5% would be equally likely. So with 1.5% positive rate @ 1.5% CI, anything from 0% to 3% is equally likely.

The stated that in the study as well:

"For example, if new estimates indicate test specificity to be less than 97.9%, our SARS-CoV-2 prevalence estimate would change from 2.8% to less than 1%, and the lower uncertainty bound of our estimate would include zero."

The issue was when they calibrated the test, they only performed 30 negative tests. They need to go back and re-calibrate the test.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

I am surprised the prevalence estimate is only 2.8%. Will have to read that study.

Didn’t the Gangelt Germany study find 15%? They were involved very early on. I bet there is a lot of heterogeneity in this.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

I do understand that a lot of the people posting here fall into a higher risk group for Covid-19 and so I definitely advocate for them to make there own judgements and take appropriate precautions.

You can reduce your risk of being infected to almost 0 by staying at home and not letting anyone else in.

I have some friends in the very high risk category who choose to do just that right now.

 

[Juliet Hotel]

They are just posting BS numbers to shut up the inquisitors...

Those are the numbers that exist. Everyone and I mean everyone agrees there is an unrepresented group of people who are or have been positive and never knew it. No one disputes that. But at the same time, no one has any way to reliably estimate how big that group is. So these are the numbers we have. What would you have us do? No numbers at all ever?

 

[Ghery]

Ah, but we have a social contract in place. That dictates if you are dumb enough to do something, we still take care of you. e.g. Motorcycle helmets.
I prefer a more Darwinian solution. You want to drive a motorcycle without a helmet? Go ahead, you just signed for the fact you will receive no medical care in the case of a crash. You can do the same with COVID-19. You want to go work and resume life. Sure, sign here you will receive no medical care from flu or flu like conditions unless there is excess capacity to accommodate; even "plastic surgery" is ahead of you in the line.

Tim

In high school and college I knew 4 people who needed motorcycle helmets. 3 had them and are alive today. 1 did not and he died at the scene. Very limited sample size, 100% correlation. BTW, my wife and I were two of the three.

I don't like the government telling me what to do. I don't like helmet laws. That said, anyone who rides without one should have his head examined while he still has a head to examine.

 

[NoHeat]

... very plain and factual announcement by President Bush to stop Iraq for Dessert Shield or his son for Dessert Storm.

Desserts. Mmmm.

And now what do we get?

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Unfortunately it’s a really terrible study. The test they use has a 1.5% CI. And they detected a 1.5% positive rate...

So it means precisely nothing. Unfortunately.

You can use this results to justify both a CFR of 0% and one of 100%.

I read the whole paper and will have to disagree. Firstly I think this was a rather well done study given the evidence available regarding the sensitivity and specificity of the test at the time.

It is important to note that estimates based on sampling like this will always have a a statistical distribution and a certain range in the confidence intervals. Nonetheless, the mean estimate of prevalence, as adjusted, is likely the best estimator from a mean squared error point of view.

What a 95% confidence interval means is not that “precisely nothing” is known, but rather that there is a 95% chance that the estimated value lies within the specified interval. In this case, the estimated intervals based on the available data are that the prevalence lies between 2.5 and 5.7% using a number of different assumptions. Certainly if new data becomes available indicating the sensitivity and specificity of the test are actually different, then that would have to change, as the authors note. But that is not the case now and there is no existing data to suggest the 95% CI should include 0.

So I think the authors are on rather good ground when they assert that the number of infected in this population was likely 50-85 times higher than the reported cases. We’ll have to see how it does in peer-review of course, but this group is well known and competent.

 

[Juliet Hotel]

In high school and college I knew 4 people who needed motorcycle helmets. 3 had them and are alive today. 1 did not and he died at the scene. Very limited sample size, 100% correlation. BTW, my wife and I were two of the three.

I don't like the government telling me what to do. I don't like helmet laws. That said, anyone who rides without one should have his head examined while he still has a head to examine.

This is an excellent example of part of why I feel the way I do about the need for government regulation of some activities of individuals. Bike riders can be divided into three categories. Those do it and survive without any lasting ill effects. Those who do it and die because of it. And those who do it and come away with permanent disabilities because of it.

That last group is likely to spend the rest of their lives reliant on tax dollars for survival. And lots of good research has shown that use of a helmet makes you much more likely to end up in the first or second group rather than the third. I'm all for individual freedoms. I'm not for so much individual freedoms that you are able to put yourself at increased risk of having to rely on me and my tax dollars to pay your rent for you the rest of your life. I guess I'm just a jerk that way.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

The issue was when they calibrated the test, they only performed 30 negative tests. They need to go back and re-calibrate the test.

As noted in the paper, they also used a much larger calibration sample which was obtained by the manufacturer.

The idea that somehow the true prevalence could be as low as 0 is based on speculation. Note the “if” in the statement by the authors quoted above,

The numbers quoted by the authors for the mean prevalence are the best estimates based on the current data.

 

[Matthew]

Unfortunately it’s a really terrible study. The test they use has a 1.5% CI. And they detected a 1.5% positive rate...

So it means precisely nothing. Unfortunately.

You can use this results to justify both a CFR of 0% and one of 100%.

I ran across this “peer review”. I’m not this sort of numbers guy, so I don’t know the validity of this critique, and I don’t know anything about the author. But he echoes some of your comments.

https://medium.com/@balajis/peer-re...in-santa-clara-county-california-1f6382258c25

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

I ran across this “peer review”. I’m not this sort of numbers guy, so I don’t know the validity of this critique, and I don’t know anything about the author. But he echoes some of your comments.

https://medium.com/@balajis/peer-re...in-santa-clara-county-california-1f6382258c25

I read that “review”. His primary concern seems to be that given possible values of the false positive rate for the test, it is conceivable that with a higher FPR, a fair number of the observed positives could be false positives.

While that is true, it does not imply that such a result is very probable (he could compute that using his models).

The best estimate based on this data of adjusted prevalence is as given by the authors of the paper. There is some finite probability that the actual prevalence is different than the mean as stated by the given confidence intervals.

He does raise an interesting point regarding the implication that Covid-19 would have to be spreading much more quickly than viruses in prior pandemics for the stated results to be true. I think that is a good observation. And is in accordance with an extrapolation by a Reason editor that a 50-85X ratio would imply that nearly all of New York City is presently infected.

I agree completely with his argument that more serological surveys are badly needed.

Another point of reference is that the 0.15 - 0.2% infection fatality rate is not so far from the 0.3% estimate from the Gangelt study, at least in absolute terms (clearly a 50% difference relatively speaking).

The Stanford study adds to a growing body of evidence that the true infection fatality rate (vs case fatality rate) is on the order of 0.1-0.3%, a far cry from the feared 8% based on initial reports, and perhaps 2-3X more deadly than the seasonal flu.

 

[dmspilot]

The test they use has a 1.5% CI. And they detected a 1.5% positive rate...

Which test has a 1.5% confidence interval and where is that stated? That doesn't even make sense.

 

[MyDimeIsUp]

As of right now, I can say that there are definitely places that have overreacted and places that have underreacted like governor of Georgia is just an idiot. If you didn't hear about that, around April 2nd he made an announcement saying it "came to his attention" that COVID is highly transmittable, and is asymptomatic. As if the documentation from the CDC from even early February wasn't enough. So there are 2 ends here, the really dumb of underreacting and the really extreme of overreacting. There needs to be a middle ground.

As per what I THINK we should and shouldn't be doing. It's not really my place. I'm not a medical professional. I'm an aspiring pilot. Along with that, even my mom, who is a Nurse, has agreed partly that it may not even be her place. She isn't an advisor or a person with direct access to raw data, who is analyzing this on a daily basis. What she gets is snippets from friends and news that has played whisper down the lane God knows how many times. That doesn't mean to blindly follow political leaders and the WHO (WHO I would trust more; Bad joke I'm sorry but my statement stands) who are directly advised to by these medical professionals (Refer to Georgia or New York/MI/PA), but take what they say with some advice. Just social distance, it isn't that hard and it'll make everyone you're around comfortable. Wash your hands, and just limit contact for now. For many they are suffering, but we have people out there donating money and the Gov. adding the stimulus bill.

And for me to blindly say "its like the seasonal flu. It'll come back". Not my place, I'm not directly advised to nor a professional. I'm not going to say it is or isn't. I'll wait to hear from multiple sources on their results, who spend their entire weeks, months on COVID, and years in that field.

Matthew 25:40 (NIV)
“The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’”

Proverbs 31:8-9 (NIV)
“Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy.”

As such, those who focus on the 99% are forgetting the lessons above.


Tim

As per this, I'll say it that I am Catholic but to support an argument with Gospel passages is bad. Its something I learned in Debate club and from multiple English teachers. Someone can just come out and say "well I don't believe in the Catholic Church/Christian faith" and boom, those arguments are gone; you no longer have a basis.

Anyway, those are my thoughts. A long post but what else do I have to do while self-isolating

Pete

 

[35 AoA]

4800 hundred elisted sailors, i.e. young and in shape with very little in the way of comorbidities. Interesting stat, but not exactly a sample set that's representative of the general population.

I don't say this condescendingly, but I'm guessing you haven't spent time on an aircraft carrier. On any given boat, there is guaranteed to be a seriously non-zero percentage of clinically obese people, and many more who are pretty over-weight. There is also going to be a very much more non-zero percentage of heavy smokers with everything that goes along with that. In many cases, Sailors will fit both of those descriptions. Yes, the vast majority of those folks will be in the 18-45 year old range, but they are still a cross section to some extent, of most of America when it comes to unhealthy habits and chronic disease. I'd submit they are actually more representative than you might imagine.

 

[tspear]

@MyDimeIsUp
Ah but Pète. Regardless of beliefs, the good book is the foundation of the majority of or morals as a society.
Now as a Catholic, you actually should be looking closer at Thomas Aquanas and Natural Law Theory

Tim

Sent from my HD1907 using Tapatalk

 

[kyleb]

As of right now, I can say that there are definitely places that have overreacted and places that have underreacted like governor of Georgia is just an idiot. If you didn't hear about that, around April 2nd he made an announcement saying it "came to his attention" that COVID is highly transmittable, and is asymptomatic.
Pete

I'm unimpressed by our current governor, but that statement was a snippet from a lengthy press conference and was taken out of context. That's the problem with today's "news". Instead of communicating the real story, too much of it is taylored to create controversy and/or to support a particular network's political bias.

 

[Juliet Hotel]

That's the problem with today's "news". Instead of communicating the real story, too much of it is taylored to create controversy and/or to support a particular network's political bias.

Today's news? Do you mean to suggest there was a time when this didn't happen?

 

[Juliet Hotel]

I don't say this condescendingly, but I'm guessing you haven't spent time on an aircraft carrier. On any given boat, there is guaranteed to be a seriously non-zero percentage of clinically obese people, and many more who are pretty over-weight. There is also going to be a very much more non-zero percentage of heavy smokers with everything that goes along with that. In many cases, Sailors will fit both of those descriptions. Yes, the vast majority of those folks will be in the 18-45 year old range, but they are still a cross section to some extent, of most of America when it comes to unhealthy habits and chronic disease. I'd submit they are actually more representative than you might imagine.

Fair enough, they're more representative. But its still a skewed sample set and it would be foolish to draw any conclusions based on it.

 

[Half Fast]

That's the problem with today's "news". Instead of communicating the real story, too much of it is taylored to create controversy and/or to support a particular network's political bias.

People often seem to think that journalism was once a noble profession that has somehow declined in the last decade or two. News reporting has been this way as far back as you care to look, and I suspect distorted and biased "journalism" actually began about 20 minutes after Gutenberg invented the printing press. Mark Twain once quipped, "If you don't read the newspapers you are uninformed; if you do read the newspapers you are misinformed."

Go back and take a look at propaganda in the late 1890s around the Spanish-American war. Hearst's statement to Remington (his illustrator in Cuba), "You furnish the pictures and I'll furnish the war," is probably the best remembered example, but it's hardly unique.

Heck, for that matter, research propaganda that was used to stir up discontent in the American colonies and promote the Revolutionary War.

This stuff is nothing new. Those who seek to "restore" integrity in journalism should begin their journey by first realizing integrity was never there to begin with.

 

[Everskyward]

People often seem to think that journalism was once a noble profession that has somehow declined in the last decade or two. News reporting has been this way as far back as you care to look, and I suspect distorted and biased "journalism" actually began about 20 minutes after Gutenberg invented the printing press. Mark Twain once quipped, "If you don't read the newspapers you are uninformed; if you do read the newspapers you are misinformed."

Go back and take a look at propaganda in the late 1890s around the Spanish-American war. Hearst's statement to Remington (his illustrator in Cuba), "You furnish the pictures and I'll furnish the war," is probably the best remembered example, but it's hardly unique.

Heck, for that matter, research propaganda that was used to stir up discontent in the American colonies and promote the Revolutionary War.

This stuff is nothing new. Those who seek to "restore" integrity in journalism should begin their journey by first realizing integrity was never there to begin with.

The only difference is that “news” gets wider exposure now. At first it was only print. Before cable news, it was only on TV a couple hours a day, max. Now with the internet, anyone can create their own brand of “news”/propaganda.

 

[Half Fast]

The only difference is that “news” gets wider exposure now. At first it was only print. Before cable news, it was only on TV a couple hours a day, max. Now with the internet, anyone can create their own brand of “news”/propaganda.

Very true! But news reporters have been lying since the Amalekite lied to David about the death of King Saul (2 Sam chapter 1). We just get more lies faster now.

The only upside, if there is one, is that wide and rapid dissemination of information sometimes results in a liar getting busted (i.e., Rathergate).

 

[Palmpilot]

...The only upside, if there is one, is that wide and rapid dissemination of information sometimes results in a liar getting busted (i.e., Rathergate).

It should be noted, by the way, that the authentication issues with that story were uncovered by the much-maligned MSM.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killian_documents_controversy

 

[tspear]

People often seem to think that journalism was once a noble profession that has somehow declined in the last decade or two. News reporting has been this way as far back as you care to look, and I suspect distorted and biased "journalism" actually began about 20 minutes after Gutenberg invented the printing press. Mark Twain once quipped, "If you don't read the newspapers you are uninformed; if you do read the newspapers you are misinformed."

Go back and take a look at propaganda in the late 1890s around the Spanish-American war. Hearst's statement to Remington (his illustrator in Cuba), "You furnish the pictures and I'll furnish the war," is probably the best remembered example, but it's hardly unique.

Heck, for that matter, research propaganda that was used to stir up discontent in the American colonies and promote the Revolutionary War.

This stuff is nothing new. Those who seek to "restore" integrity in journalism should begin their journey by first realizing integrity was never there to begin with.

Cherry picking information and taking it out of context have always existed; as you point out. However, over the past 3 to 4 decades, as technology has changed; we have started to consume significantly more speculation and opinion and less actual facts. We have also gone from respecting experts in a multitude of fields to declaring experts know nothing. Therefore, misinformation, either deliberate or not, has become a greater problem in this age than any previously.

Tim

 

[Everskyward]

@MyDimeIsUp , since you are a new member you are probably unaware that we don't allow political discussion here according to the Rules of Conduct. We realize that there are political angles to the covid situation, but will delete posts that are blatantly political, like the ones above.

Edit to update: Thank you.

Leaving this here to remind others.

Second edit: Subsequent posters didn't heed this warning so their posts were deleted and the thread locked.