Wtf

11 of 100 blood donors in Stockholm have had it.
Prof Jan Albert in clinical microbiology at Karolinska reckons it’s over 20% as the antibody test doesn’t catch all cases by any stretch.
Karolinska did this test last week.
https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/11-procent-av-stockholmarna-har-antikroppar-mot-covid-19
Thoughts @Pogue Mahone & especially @massi83 who doubted my 7.5% optimism last week as “pregnant women are at higher risk”.
Is that 11 in 100 indicating a sample size of 100 just a janky way of saying 11%?
haha, yeah 11%.
Sample size was 100.
Chief epidemiologist here reckons the result could mean some serious affects of any possible herd immunity could/should be felt after a couple more weeks.
Don't be so precious. When we talk about Stockholm, do you mean city with 1m or greater area with 2.3mThis new test (see above) makes you sound like another know it all, know feck all.
Just because massi, the insufferable nitpicking pedant from redcafe “told me”, means naff all to me mate, I listen to experts.
Maybe take a step back and realise you don’t have all of the answers, if any. As I suggested, pregnant woman go into a completely different section of a hospital, nowhere near to where Covid-19 patients are doctors/nurses would be and weren’t/aren’t much more at risk, if at all.
For the RT-PCR they are basically the same at or very near to 100% depending on the test in question. But remember the "positives" were contrived by spiking old swab specimens with various amounts of RNA and the testing values don't account for sampling differences etc.@senorgregster The specificity of RT-PCR for SarsCov2 is higher than the sensitivity, right? I'm trying to look for it, but am not finding simple answers, my head is a bit fried anyway.
Don't be so precious. When we talk about Stockholm, do you mean city with 1m or greater area with 2.3m
You do understand that a sample of 100 blood donors fails both in sample size and in being unbiased.
11 of 100 blood donors in Stockholm have had it.
Prof Jan Albert in clinical microbiology at Karolinska reckons it’s over 20% as the antibody test doesn’t catch all cases by any stretch.
Karolinska did this test last week.
https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/11-procent-av-stockholmarna-har-antikroppar-mot-covid-19
Encouraging news. Will be interesting to see the numbers needed to get herd immunity for a city of that size. The one unknown factor is: Apart from the older populace, how many of the general population have gone into hiding? The Apple tracker indicates a sharp decline in movement around the same time as the rest of the Nordics (far less movement in Stockholm than Sweden in general), so we might see smaller outbreaks later on when these people return to normal daily life.
Not surprised that you aren't willing to put your money where your mouth is. Looking forward to more personal attacks insteadNot my study, I “mean” nothing. Just passing it on as I did with the pregnant women study.![]()
11 of 100 blood donors in Stockholm have had it.
Prof Jan Albert in clinical microbiology at Karolinska reckons it’s over 20% as the antibody test doesn’t catch all cases by any stretch.
Karolinska did this test last week.
https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/11-procent-av-stockholmarna-har-antikroppar-mot-covid-19
Thoughts @Pogue Mahone & especially @massi83 who doubted my 7.5% optimism last week as “pregnant women are at higher risk”.
So yeah, I'm still highly skeptical about what you're hoping to see in Sweden, in terms of prevalence in the community. I mean, it is possible that 1 or 2 million Swedes all got infected in the space of, what? 4 to 6 weeks? I'd have to say that's very very unlikely. Not with the mortality rates we're seeing in every other country. You'd be digging mass graves by now, if that was the case.
Totally agree with this.Is that literally 11 out of 100? Or another way of saying 11%? If the former, that's an absolutely tiny sample so wouldn't read much into it at all. In medical science, the bigger the sample size the more reliable the results. A study of 100 people would be a pretty useless way to learn about anything, never mind studying the way a virus is spreading through the population of an entire country! Think about it. How could 100 people (possibly all from the same location?) be in any way representative of the whole of Sweden?
There have been bigger (and hence more reliable) blood donor studies in other countries which have come up with lower prevalence. We already mentioned the Danish one, where 1500 donors were tested earlier in this thread (1.5% positive) and a similar study in Scotland found 6 out of 1000 tests were positive (0.6%)
https://figshare.com/articles/Serol...CoV2antibodiescollectedinMarch2020/12116778/2
Blood donors (like pregnant women) are more likely to have been around hospitals or have family members who are regular patients in hospital. The best possible analysis would be people randomly selected from the general public. In Iceland they did that study, randomly selecting a cohort of nearly 7000 people to be screened. 0.6% of them tested positive.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2006100?query=featured_home
So yeah, I'm still highly skeptical about what you're hoping to see in Sweden, in terms of prevalence in the community. I mean, it is possible that 1 or 2 million Swedes all got infected in the space of, what? 4 to 6 weeks? I'd have to say that's very very unlikely. Not with the mortality rates we're seeing in every other country. You'd be digging mass graves by now, if that was the case.
SC Gov. Henry McMaster - "we're going to open up beaches and some retail stores"
Reporter - "have we met the federal guidelines for entering Phase 1?"
McMaster and the Dept. of Health rep - "no, we have not"
![]()
No way. That would mean 200k people got infected. Yet there are less than 1000 deaths in Stockholm. For comparison, the province of Bergamo who has around the same population has had more than 4500 deaths at the beginning of April (likely raised since then). Why they should have 5 times more deaths than Stockholm? The only way for the numbers to match, is if every person there was infected (if you imagine Stockholm having 20% infections).Is it possible that 11% of 975,000 Stockholmers got infected in 6 weeks?.. absolutely I’d say.
Considering schools have remained open I’d imagine it’s rife in school kids, teachers and parents.
No-one knows the mortality rate still Pogue.
Denmark tested for antibodies in 3989 blood donors and found 72 of them had developed them. They estimate that about 1.9 % of the population have had it when taking into account the uncertainty of the antibody test and geography of the tested, and that's looking through their most rose coloured glasses. Don't know what Sweden's playing at with that sample size.Is that literally 11 out of 100? Or another way of saying 11%? If the former, that's an absolutely tiny sample so wouldn't read much into it at all. In medical science, the bigger the sample size the more reliable the results. A study of 100 people would be a pretty useless way to learn about anything, never mind studying the way a virus is spreading through the population of an entire country! Think about it. How could 100 people (possibly all from the same location?) be in any way representative of the whole of Sweden?
There have been bigger (and hence more reliable) blood donor studies in other countries which have come up with lower prevalence. We already mentioned the Danish one, where 1500 donors were tested earlier in this thread (1.5% positive) and a similar study in Scotland found 6 out of 1000 tests were positive (0.6%)
https://figshare.com/articles/Serol...CoV2antibodiescollectedinMarch2020/12116778/2
Blood donors (like pregnant women) are more likely to have been around hospitals or have family members who are regular patients in hospital. The best possible analysis would be people randomly selected from the general public. In Iceland they did that study, randomly selecting a cohort of nearly 7000 people to be screened. 0.6% of them tested positive.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2006100?query=featured_home
So yeah, I'm still highly skeptical about what you're hoping to see in Sweden, in terms of prevalence in the community. I mean, it is possible that 1 or 2 million Swedes all got infected in the space of, what? 4 to 6 weeks? I'd have to say that's very very unlikely. Not with the mortality rates we're seeing in every other country. You'd be digging mass graves by now, if that was the case.
It just blows my mind that we are blatantly not following the guidelines of the Trump administration when our governor LOVES Trump.So enough Americans are now fully aware of the threat of covid. It's no longer something happening in a foreign terrorist land. Regardless of what Trump, OAN or their own community echo chambers are telling them.
The inevitable deaths that will come to their own doorsteps for visiting the beaches is all on them. Will reduce some of the Idiocrats living in those lands.
Denmark tested for antibodies in 3989 blood donors and found 72 of them had developed them. They estimate that about 1.9 % of the population have had it when taking into account the uncertainty of the antibody test and geography of the tested, and that's looking through their most rose coloured glasses. Don't know what Sweden's playing at with that sample size.
Yeah, but in practical terms the sensitivity must be limited by the sampling process... Whilst the specificity is not, I presume.For the RT-PCR they are basically the same at or very near to 100% depending on the test in question. But remember the "positives" were contrived by spiking old swab specimens with various amounts of RNA and the testing values don't account for sampling differences etc.
You'll see huge variability in the ELISA and other immunoassays. They are all over the place. So far I think I've seen SN and SP from the 60s to 99%.
Yep, it has to be something like this. Maybe 5-10% in heavy hit areas like Lombardy or New York, but in most countries, it has to be around 2-3%.Denmark tested for antibodies in 3989 blood donors and found 72 of them had developed them. They estimate that about 1.9 % of the population have had it when taking into account the uncertainty of the antibody test and geography of the tested, and that's looking through their most rose coloured glasses. Don't know what Sweden's playing at with that sample size.
Stockholm had a random sample study end of March, result was 2,5% on that time had it (not antibody). So 5-8% when including recovered. So 11% isn't impossible at all in Stockholm city (1m), impossible for Sweden and unlikely for Greater stockholm (2.3m). And it isn't contradictory to what I have said before. But in general the more biased and smaller the sample the more Regulus likes it.Is that literally 11 out of 100? Or another way of saying 11%? If the former, that's an absolutely tiny sample so wouldn't read much into it at all. In medical science, the bigger the sample size the more reliable the results. A study of 100 people would be a pretty useless way to learn about anything, never mind studying the way a virus is spreading through the population of an entire country! Think about it. How could 100 people (possibly all from the same location?) be in any way representative of the whole of Sweden?
There have been bigger (and hence more reliable) blood donor studies in other countries which have come up with lower prevalence. We already mentioned the Danish one, where 1500 donors were tested earlier in this thread (1.5% positive) and a similar study in Scotland found 6 out of 1000 tests were positive (0.6%)
https://figshare.com/articles/Serol...CoV2antibodiescollectedinMarch2020/12116778/2
Blood donors (like pregnant women) are more likely to have been around hospitals or have family members who are regular patients in hospital. The best possible analysis would be people randomly selected from the general public. In Iceland they did that study, randomly selecting a cohort of nearly 7000 people to be screened. 0.6% of them tested positive.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2006100?query=featured_home
So yeah, I'm still highly skeptical about what you're hoping to see in Sweden, in terms of prevalence in the community. I mean, it is possible that 1 or 2 million Swedes all got infected in the space of, what? 4 to 6 weeks? I'd have to say that's very very unlikely. Not with the mortality rates we're seeing in every other country. You'd be digging mass graves by now, if that was the case.
That’s the most peculiar thing about it. Why a serious scientist would even try to draw conclusions about such a trivial amount of data.
Stockholm had a random sample study end of March, result was 2,5% on that time had it (not antibody). So 5-8% when including recovered. So 11% isn't impossible at all in Stockholm city (1m), impossible for Sweden and unlikely for Greater stockholm (2.3m). And it isn't contradictory to what I have said before. But in general the more biased and smaller the sample the more Regulus likes it.
That’s consistent with the serology testing from blood donors in European countries. 1.5%. This fecking thing kills 1 in 100 people it infects. The idea that we’d find 10-30% of the population of an entire country already infected was always a pipe dream. The death toll from that would be astronomical.
Stockholm had a random sample study end of March, result was 2,5% on that time had it (not antibody). So 5-8% when including recovered. So 11% isn't impossible at all in Stockholm city (1m), impossible for Sweden and unlikely for Greater stockholm (2.3m). And it isn't contradictory to what I have said before. But in general the more biased and smaller the sample the more Regulus likes it.
What am I missing?
Indeed.It’s definitely possible that the worst hit town at the centre of an epidemic can have 10-20% of people infected. The German town with the most cases apparently had 14% prevalence. This tells us feck all about the country as a whole, though. And herd immunity will be about the whole country, not specific hot spots.
Unless you find a way to stop all travel within that country. Somehow hope that Stockholm can work on herd immunity in complete isolation from the rest of Sweden. Which would be a completely bonkers and unworkable plan.
Iran?Is there any country in the world where the sale is alcohol is forbidden? Or am I cursed by living in the only one?!![]()
Iran? I guess I'm not cursed after all. A little perspective goes a long way.Iran?
Some have mistaken it for an iceberg.
A shit-load of deaths, by the sound of things.
That’s consistent with the serology testing from blood donors in European countries. 1.5%. This fecking thing kills 1 in 100 people it infects. The idea that we’d find 10-30% of the population of an entire country already infected was always a pipe dream. The death toll from that would be astronomical.
I don't understand your post without providing more context.
That Santa Clara study has loads of problems. Also in NYC already 0,15% of total population has already died and 100% aren't infected obviously. So far I think our best study is the one from Gangelt, Germany, that had a 0,37% death rate, but it isn't published/finished yet.?
There's 69 deaths from ~60,000 infections. So where did you get the "this disease kills 1 in 100"?
Isn't this very good news? Or would you rather be right?
Ah, ok, got it. These numbers do not match anything else right there. It puts the mortality rate at the flu's level. It also means that there should be 1/3 of the Iceland population be infected, in order for them to reach 10 deaths (but Iceland studies, show only 0.6% of people being infected). It also means that in Bergamo region (who has the same population as Stockholm, every person had to have been infected 4 times, in order to reach their 4500 deaths.?
There's 69 deaths from ~60,000 infections. So where did you get the "this disease kills 1 in 100"?
Isn't this very good news? Or would you rather be right?