Stanford study suggests coronavirus is more widespread than realized

spectator.us ^ | 4/17/20 | Ross Clark

[Buckeye McFrog]

The significance of this study cannot be overstated. Zero basis for lockdown.

The scientific community is still clinging to the work of Bozo the Modeler. Their pride simply won't allow them to open their minds to other paradigms. They'll believe it only after we've done enough antibody testing to make the conclusion unavoidable.

[a little elbow grease]

New York State adopted social distancing only two days before California. Fauci’s mitigation cannot be the answer. ///////////// Correct!!!! No MEDIA coverage of the disparity.

________________

Liz Wheeler is repeatedly all over this matter on 'The Tipping Point' on OANN.

She talks fast, but she's smart as can be.

[AndyJackson]

The reason the false positive rate is important here is that if you test 1,000,000 who don’t have CV with a 1% false positive rate you will claim that 10,000 people have it when none do. The false negative rate is an issue in containment, when you are trying to isolate everyone with the disease. It’s a problem, but a different problem in the context of the current article.

[a little elbow grease]

Liz Wheeler (OAN) talks about this nearly every night.

[Valpal1]

The test kit used in this study (Premier Biotech, Minneapolis, MN) was tested in a Stanford laboratory
prior to field deployment. Among 37 samples of known PCR-positive COVID-19 patients with positive
IgG or IgM detected on a locally-developed ELISA test, 25 were kit-positive. A sample of 30 pre-COVID
samples from hip surgery patients were also tested, and all 30 were negative. The manufacturer’s test
characteristics relied on samples from clinically confirmed COVID-19 patients as positive gold standard
and pre-COVID sera for negative gold standard. Among 75 samples of clinically confirmed COVID-19
patients with positive IgG, 75 were kit-positive, and among 85 samples with positive IgM, 78 were kitpositive. Among 371 pre-COVID samples, 369 were negative. Our estimates of sensitivity based on the
manufacturer’s and locally tested data were 91.8% (using the lower estimate based on IgM, 95 CI 83.8-
96.6%) and 67.6% (95 CI 50.2-82.0%), respectively. Similarly, our estimates of specificity are 99.5% (95
CI 98.1-99.9%) and 100% (95 CI 90.5-100%). A combination of both data sources provides us with a
combined sensitivity of 80.3% (95 CI 72.1-87.0%) and a specificity of 99.5% (95 CI 98.3-99.9%).

[a little elbow grease]

Good luck with that. I wish you and your wife well.

My wife and I (70 and 73) are feeling a little weird these days too in PA.

[Seaplaner]

Sunlight (vitamin D) and less mass transit.

Precisely, my good FRiend.

[exDemMom]

So you know more about the scientists’ study (see link below) than they do, and they’re wrong and you’re right. Sure.

I've run hundreds (thousands?) of various immunoassays, and am very familiar with the cross-reactivity problems that almost all antibodies have.

How many immunoassays have you run?

[Dutch Boy]

The opposite of what our caretaker overlords want. They push us to get let sunlight by convincing people that with even moderate exposure to the sun and you will get skin cancer and ride more mass transit to save the planet.

[Shethink13]

So, a lot of people tested for antibodies with a non-validated test came up positive. It looks to me like they're detecting people who have had ordinary coronavirus infections--in other words, it's detecting people who had colds.

Nope. Wrong again.

CDC Serology Testing for COVID-19

FDA Statement on Serology Tests

[43north]

“Cuomo is a mouthy ass and an embarrassment to Italians...”

Which Cuomo - Guido or Fredo? Not much difference that I see.

[Shethink13]

81 year old male in fairly good health. Immunizations and other problems:

INFs Pres Free High Dose (FLUZONE) (influenza) Administered 9/26/2019

I would be interested to know the vaccination history of every COVID positive patient with more severe symptoms, especially the High Dose as you received as these are specifically limited to 65+ year olds.

Can I ask you a question? I'm curious why you would get a vaccination before you know whether you already have immunity to the flu?

Do you realize that your doctor can order testing for Influenza A and B IgG/IgM antibody?

If you're not a diagnosed diabetic, would you take a shot of insulin (if it was offered without prescription) just in case you might develop it? Or would you take chemotherapy just because you have a family history of cancer?

I don't know what kind of relationship you have with your GP but if it is open and honest I would ask him/her why they are advising you get a flu shot or any other vaccination without first finding out whether you really need it.

Hope I'm not offending, certainly not my intention.

Regards!

[Paladin2]

It’s good to know both numbers when comparing tests.

Plus to get a good statistical number for an individual, one may have to take a number of tests to get to the desired degree of confidence.

[GulfMan]

There is not accurate antibody test as of yet

[Antoninus]

do people really think Cuomo wants to prevent deaths?...he does not....infact, I'm sure he's thinking that the more little old grannies that die in a nursing home the more gallant he looks for "trying to stop it"....

Remember, not a year ago, govs like Cuomo were agitating to allow women to kill their babies up to the moment of birth--and a little beyond if need be. They see abortion and euthanasia as responsible ways to solve intractable social problems. They do not give a fig about human life.

I had one particularly hard leftist colleague tell me that it would be great if this virus wiped out a lot of the older generation because it would mean less work for the middle-age generation dealing with them. They could come into their inheritance sooner and the oldsters wouldn't suck down as much in the way of healthcare resources. I wonder where he picked up such notions?

[ETCM]

I found this.

Dr. Yvonne Maldonado, a Stanford professor of pediatric infectious diseases and health research and policy, said during the April 9 virtual town hall that she believes the negative predictive value of the Stanford test is between 95% and 99%.

"If you get a negative test, you can be 95% to 99% certain that the test is accurate," Maldonado said.

I have not found the Positive Predictive Value anywhere. With even a 1% false positive rate and only 1.5% positive, then up to 66% of the positive tests could be false positives. When evaluating such a low rate of infection, your test has to have extreme accuracy.

I read that they used 2 year old stored blood as a negative control group, but have not seen any any info on the positive control group. I assume they used confirmed "recovered" patient blood, but that could vary significantly from patient to patient.

We will have to see just how accurate the study is. I know we were hoping for much higher than 1.5%. The study was published here

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

[shanover]

The new narrative is things won’t EVER get better and we need more time.......into the heart of the Presidential election.

[ßuddaßudd]

exactly,, I mingled with a lot of asians that traveled for the holidays, both theirs and ours up until mid march,
then we all sent home ..

[bitt]

p

[libertylover]

So, does this mean herd immunity is farther along than previously thought?