Testing for Antibodies for those that can return to normalcy

lotr10 said:
High fates of false negatives and false positives can be deadly. Tests that have this problem can cause more harm then not testing.
Click to expand...
Of course it isn’t the ideal, but you’d be able to identify many, contact trace and isolate. Again, several countries used it successfully. And it’s significantly better than doing nothing, in which case you filter no positive cases from contacting others. You’re just making excuses for this admin because that’s your number one goal anymore.
 
eastside_purple said:
Of course it isn’t the ideal, but you’d be able to identify many, contact trace and isolate. Again, several countries used it successfully. And it’s significantly better than doing nothing, in which case you filter no positive cases from contacting others. You’re just making excuses for this admin because that’s your number one goal anymore.
Click to expand...

There are reports of false negative rates as high as 30%! Those people would be running around thinking they were SAFE while all the time spreading the virus everywhere. In contrast with a false positive rate of nearly 50% you would have a whole lot of very scared people on your hands.

It's reckless and irresponsible to employ setting with defect rates this high.
 
my2sense said:
Tests are currently reserved for those in prioritized categories. Curiosity seekers will have to wait.
Click to expand...
We saw how that worked out when we said "anyone that needs a test can have drive-up testing". Just like I said it would be, acting like it was a home pregnancy piddle-stick test. People are crazy.
 
lotr10 said:
There are reports of false negative rates as high as 30%! Those people would be running around thinking they were SAFE while all the time spreading the virus everywhere. In contrast with a false positive rate of nearly 50% you would have a whole lot of very scared people on your hands.

It's reckless and irresponsible to employ setting with defect rates this high.
Click to expand...
Yeah, better to do nothing....
 
lotr10 said:
There are reports of false negative rates as high as 30%! Those people would be running around thinking they were SAFE while all the time spreading the virus everywhere. In contrast with a false positive rate of nearly 50% you would have a whole lot of very scared people on your hands.

It's reckless and irresponsible to employ setting with defect rates this high.
Click to expand...
this, exactly
 
Yappi said:
The government, the companies that want to hire immune workers, the workers that want to return to work. Doesn't matter as long as they can get back to work.

Personally, whatever it takes to get back to normal. If they are throwing $1000s at people who are home isolating, I would be happy to see the government pay $25 for a test to get them back to work.
Click to expand...
It would be great if we could get back to normalcy with everyone working, no shelter-in-place, etc. It has not yet been shown, though, that having and recovering from SARS-CoV-2 is insurance against having it again. In theory having antibodies would prevent a recurrence of the virus within an individual that has already had the virus but there are a lot of unknowns around SARS-CoV-2.

The other point is that SARS-CoV-2 has been shown to be a lot more transmittable than SARS-CoV was. The death-to-case ratio of SARS-CoV was/is much higher than SARS-CoV-2 but it appears that much is not known about modes of transmission with this new coronavirus. It is a respiratory virus so transmission is primarily through droplets from when an infected person coughs or sneezes or also through droplets of saliva or discharge from the nose, if those droplets end up on clothing and then a person that has not had SARS-CoV-2 comes in contact with that, there is a possibility that they could then become infected. In a scenario in which persons that have SARS-CoV-2 antibodies goes out in public and then is exposed, again, to the virus, they potentially can take that home and infect family members that have not had the virus. The chances of that happening are not great but the possibility is there.

As painful as it is for the economy to be slowed down as much as it has been, the alternative is much worse. The economy will recover - eventually. One only has to look at the number of cases from last week to this week and see now there has been such a large exponential increase. If folks start going back out into the public to soon and back to life as we very recently knew, that exponent will become much larger. At that time there will be an even larger drain on the economy. Today there are over 55,000 cases in the United States. Just a few weeks ago there were barely over 1,000.
 
Rohbino said:
It would be great if we could get back to normalcy with everyone working, no shelter-in-place, etc. It has not yet been shown, though, that having and recovering from SARS-CoV-2 is insurance against having it again. In theory having antibodies would prevent a recurrence of the virus within an individual that has already had the virus but there are a lot of unknowns around SARS-CoV-2.

......... Today there are over 55,000 cases in the United States. Just a few weeks ago there were barely over 1,000.
Click to expand...
Thank goodness that our decisions will lean most heavily on our testing.

This fact^ - known cases - is in part due to waiting until we had our own accurate test. While inconvenient and potentially suggesting a greater virulence than is actual, it WILL yield us the truth about re-infection potential, and that may prove to be the most important factor in this whole mess.
 
cabezadecaballo said:
Thank goodness that our decisions will lean most heavily on our testing.

This fact^ - known cases - is in part due to waiting until we had our own accurate test. While inconvenient and potentially suggesting a greater virulence than is actual, it WILL yield us the truth about re-infection potential, and that may prove to be the most important factor in this whole mess.
Click to expand...
Waiting also caused many more cases.
 
Rohbino said:
It would be great if we could get back to normalcy with everyone working, no shelter-in-place, etc. It has not yet been shown, though, that having and recovering from SARS-CoV-2 is insurance against having it again. In theory having antibodies would prevent a recurrence of the virus within an individual that has already had the virus but there are a lot of unknowns around SARS-CoV-2.

The other point is that SARS-CoV-2 has been shown to be a lot more transmittable than SARS-CoV was. The death-to-case ratio of SARS-CoV was/is much higher than SARS-CoV-2 but it appears that much is not known about modes of transmission with this new coronavirus. It is a respiratory virus so transmission is primarily through droplets from when an infected person coughs or sneezes or also through droplets of saliva or discharge from the nose, if those droplets end up on clothing and then a person that has not had SARS-CoV-2 comes in contact with that, there is a possibility that they could then become infected. In a scenario in which persons that have SARS-CoV-2 antibodies goes out in public and then is exposed, again, to the virus, they potentially can take that home and infect family members that have not had the virus. The chances of that happening are not great but the possibility is there.

As painful as it is for the economy to be slowed down as much as it has been, the alternative is much worse. The economy will recover - eventually. One only has to look at the number of cases from last week to this week and see now there has been such a large exponential increase. If folks start going back out into the public to soon and back to life as we very recently knew, that exponent will become much larger. At that time there will be an even larger drain on the economy. Today there are over 55,000 cases in the United States. Just a few weeks ago there were barely over 1,000.
Click to expand...


" One only has to look at the number of cases from last week to this week and see now there has been such a large exponential increase. "


A MAJOR contributor to this is that we are posting the results of tests daily, that cover multiple days, in order to eliminate the backlog. Dr. Birx said last week that we would see this 'spike' and asked the media to report these increases in that context. Of course, do you really think the media would do that?
 
Rohbino said:
As painful as it is for the economy to be slowed down as much as it has been, the alternative is much worse. The economy will recover - eventually. One only has to look at the number of cases from last week to this week and see now there has been such a large exponential increase. If folks start going back out into the public to soon and back to life as we very recently knew, that exponent will become much larger. At that time there will be an even larger drain on the economy. Today there are over 55,000 cases in the United States. Just a few weeks ago there were barely over 1,000.
Click to expand...

Isn't this primarily due to increased testing?

I would be curious as to what you think about the Oxford model which suggests that the virus may have already torn through us?

theweek.com

New Oxford study suggests millions of people may have already built up coronavirus immunity

The latest Speed Read,/speed-reads,,speed-reads, breaking news, comment, reviews and features from the experts at The Week UK
theweek.com theweek.com

The Oxford research suggests the pandemic is in a later stage than previously thought and estimates the virus has already infected at least millions of people worldwide. In the United Kingdom, which the study focuses on, half the population would have already been infected. If accurate, that would mean transmission began around mid-January and the vast majority of cases presented mild or no symptoms.

The head of the study, professor Sunetra Gupta, an Oxford theoretical epidemiologist, said she still supports the U.K.'s decision to shut down the country to suppress the virus even if her research winds up being proven correct. But she also doesn't appear to be a big fan of the work done by the Imperial College team. "I am surprised that there has been such unqualified acceptance of the Imperial model," she said.

If her work is accurate, that would likely mean a large swath of the population has built up resistance to the virus. Theoretically, then, social restrictions could ease sooner than anticipated. What needs to be done now, Gupta said, is a whole lot of antibody testing to figure out who may have contracted the virus. Her research team is working with groups from the University of Cambridge and the University of Kent to start those tests for the general population as quickly as possible.
 
Hammerdrill said:
Even today, only 25% of those tested are positive. It is silly to suggest that starting sooner, when less than 5% are positive would have done anything.
Click to expand...

someone skipped stat class. On another note, even heuristically the information would likely be retroactively valuable. The major issue and it was mentioned early by EP is the socialogical (not medical) effects of false positives in early testing.
 
Rohbino said:
It would be great if we could get back to normalcy with everyone working, no shelter-in-place, etc. It has not yet been shown, though, that having and recovering from SARS-CoV-2 is insurance against having it again. In theory having antibodies would prevent a recurrence of the virus within an individual that has already had the virus but there are a lot of unknowns around SARS-CoV-2.

The other point is that SARS-CoV-2 has been shown to be a lot more transmittable than SARS-CoV was. The death-to-case ratio of SARS-CoV was/is much higher than SARS-CoV-2 but it appears that much is not known about modes of transmission with this new coronavirus. It is a respiratory virus so transmission is primarily through droplets from when an infected person coughs or sneezes or also through droplets of saliva or discharge from the nose, if those droplets end up on clothing and then a person that has not had SARS-CoV-2 comes in contact with that, there is a possibility that they could then become infected. In a scenario in which persons that have SARS-CoV-2 antibodies goes out in public and then is exposed, again, to the virus, they potentially can take that home and infect family members that have not had the virus. The chances of that happening are not great but the possibility is there.

As painful as it is for the economy to be slowed down as much as it has been, the alternative is much worse. The economy will recover - eventually. One only has to look at the number of cases from last week to this week and see now there has been such a large exponential increase. If folks start going back out into the public to soon and back to life as we very recently knew, that exponent will become much larger. At that time there will be an even larger drain on the economy. Today there are over 55,000 cases in the United States. Just a few weeks ago there were barely over 1,000.
Click to expand...
That's what you get with more widespread testing.
 
Hammerdrill said:
Even today, only 25% of those tested are positive. It is silly to suggest that starting sooner, when less than 5% are positive would have done anything.
Click to expand...
It’s not silly at all. Early testing, contact tracing and isolation would have stifled this. It’s dumb to keep saying it wouldn’t, when there are several examples to point to.
 
lotr10 said:
Isn't this primarily due to increased testing?

I would be curious as to what you think about the Oxford model which suggests that the virus may have already torn through us?

theweek.com

New Oxford study suggests millions of people may have already built up coronavirus immunity

The latest Speed Read,/speed-reads,,speed-reads, breaking news, comment, reviews and features from the experts at The Week UK
theweek.com theweek.com

The Oxford research suggests the pandemic is in a later stage than previously thought and estimates the virus has already infected at least millions of people worldwide. In the United Kingdom, which the study focuses on, half the population would have already been infected. If accurate, that would mean transmission began around mid-January and the vast majority of cases presented mild or no symptoms.

The head of the study, professor Sunetra Gupta, an Oxford theoretical epidemiologist, said she still supports the U.K.'s decision to shut down the country to suppress the virus even if her research winds up being proven correct. But she also doesn't appear to be a big fan of the work done by the Imperial College team. "I am surprised that there has been such unqualified acceptance of the Imperial model," she said.

If her work is accurate, that would likely mean a large swath of the population has built up resistance to the virus. Theoretically, then, social restrictions could ease sooner than anticipated. What needs to be done now, Gupta said, is a whole lot of antibody testing to figure out who may have contracted the virus. Her research team is working with groups from the University of Cambridge and the University of Kent to start those tests for the general population as quickly as possible.
Click to expand...
No, it’s primarily due to the spread of the virus. Testing just reveals it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top