It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

New study shows that not enough people have contracted the virus

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 21 2020 @ 06:06 PM
link   
Los Angeles antibody test results are a warning to states thinking of reopening


There’s new evidence from Los Angeles County that the novel coronavirus may have infected around 4 percent of its population.

That’s both good news and bad news.

Based on their findings, the researchers estimate between 2.8 percent and 5.6 percent of Los Angeles county adults have antibodies to the virus. 

Apply that rate to the county’s 8 million adult population, and it would mean that between 221,000 and 442,000 adults have been infected — many times more than the nearly 8,000 confirmed cases when the study was carried out in early April.


The good news is that the social distancing measures in LA have largely worked. And that the virus is not as deadly as once assumed.

But before you think that this means a return to normalcy is closer than it was last week you have to consider the bad news:



A large swath of the population appears not to have been infected yet. 

There’s still a large population the virus could burn through once people start reintegrating back into society. 

“What the findings show is only 4 percent of our population has been infected, which means we are very early in the epidemic and many more people in L.A. County could potentially be infected,” Sood said.

“As those infections rise, so will the number of hospital ICU admissions,” he added.


Now that we know the social distancing has worked too welll; keeping more people from having gotten the virus; we will now have to remain in isolation longer in order to prevent those who social distanced correctly from getting the virus.

What we need now is another test before we can even consider how we get the country moving again.



link

"The estimates also suggest that we might have to recalibrate disease prediction models and rethink public health strategies," Sood added.

Antibody tests can detect past infections and exposure to the virus, but do not indicate whether a person is currently ill. An expanded polymerase chain reaction test is required to diagnose current infections.


I wonder what test we are going to need after expanded polymerase chain reaction test shows us who is infected and who is not? Maybe a DNA test to see who is more susceptible to acute reactions to the virus... than my friends, than we can start to consider how to get back to work.



posted on Apr, 21 2020 @ 06:19 PM
link   
a reply to: DanDanDat

Well.. Putting any economic factors aside.. Any measures like this (mandated or voluntary) need to walk a fine line between not swamping the medical system and building innate immunity responses.

Im not so sure we did a great job there... Nor do I think many even realize it.



posted on Apr, 21 2020 @ 06:20 PM
link   
a reply to: DanDanDat

You seemed to have ignored the fact that this most probably indicates an inaccuracy in the antibody tests administered.

No measurement in real science is ever assumed to be error-free. In fact, the hardest part of the experimentation part of the scientific method is the determination of the sources of error and the margins of error one may reasonably expect.

If a single type of measurement disagrees with other measurements, usually it indicates a problem with that particular method, not that the data captured with every other method is entirely incorrect.



posted on Apr, 21 2020 @ 06:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: DanDanDat

You seemed to have ignored the fact that this most probably indicates an inaccuracy in the antibody tests administered.

No measurement in real science is ever assumed to be error-free. In fact, the hardest part of the experimentation part of the scientific method is the determination of the sources of error and the margins of error one may reasonably expect.

If a single type of measurement disagrees with other measurements, usually it indicates a problem with that particular method, not that the data captured with every other method is entirely incorrect.


So what you are saying is that if the particular test doesn't validate your personal political bias, then the test is naturally suspect.

Gottit.




posted on Apr, 21 2020 @ 06:49 PM
link   
a reply to: DanDanDat

We are all going back to work test or no test. We cannot afford to shell out $4 trillion a month endlessly. It has a low fatality rate. Time to roll the dice. We are Americans not a bunch of pussies.



posted on Apr, 21 2020 @ 06:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: MRinder
a reply to: DanDanDat

We are Americans not a bunch of pussies.



Then why would you rather carry guns than have a fist fight?
edit on 2142020 by IAMALLYETALLIAM because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2020 @ 06:58 PM
link   
a reply to: IAMALLYETALLIAM

Huh?



posted on Apr, 21 2020 @ 07:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: DanDanDat

You seemed to have ignored the fact that this most probably indicates an inaccuracy in the antibody tests administered.

No measurement in real science is ever assumed to be error-free. In fact, the hardest part of the experimentation part of the scientific method is the determination of the sources of error and the margins of error one may reasonably expect.

If a single type of measurement disagrees with other measurements, usually it indicates a problem with that particular method, not that the data captured with every other method is entirely incorrect.


So what you are saying is that if the particular test doesn't validate your personal political bias, then the test is naturally suspect.

Gottit.




No. If the test is giving different results than expected or than other methods, find out why.

Don't assume that the test results have a political motivation or that 'everyone is lying'.



posted on Apr, 21 2020 @ 07:10 PM
link   
This could have all been over with in 4 weeks, as with any other virus.

These demons need permanently destroyed. They are the worst virus.



posted on Apr, 21 2020 @ 07:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: DanDanDat

You seemed to have ignored the fact that this most probably indicates an inaccuracy in the antibody tests administered.

No measurement in real science is ever assumed to be error-free. In fact, the hardest part of the experimentation part of the scientific method is the determination of the sources of error and the margins of error one may reasonably expect.

If a single type of measurement disagrees with other measurements, usually it indicates a problem with that particular method, not that the data captured with every other method is entirely incorrect.


Certainly doesnt stop politicians and media from swamping the public with many differing stats.



posted on Apr, 21 2020 @ 07:20 PM
link   
a reply to: DanDanDat



Now that we know the social distancing has worked too well, keeping more people from having gotten the virus...


In other words, these lockdowns were complete overkill, and were never necessary or proper, as many of us have said time and again.


...we will now have to remain in isolation longer...


No. Hell no. It's time to let people make their own decisions in accordance with their needs and circumstances, and to let nature take its course. We need to use this lull so-to-speak to re-tool the hospitals and health care provisions in general to make better and proper arrangements for dealing with the expected patient load, based upon what we've already learned. Including the healthcare needs of others.


... in order to prevent those who social distanced correctly from getting the virus.


Those who socially distanced correctly? Excuse me??? Hate to knock you off your high horse -- oh wait! No. I don't after all -- but there's no preventing getting the virus. Everyone will get it sooner or later. Except those who have already had it. This is all about -- and ONLY about -- slowing the spread. You can run. You can hide. But Mother Nature will have her way. And so will the Grim Reaper... sooner or later.


What we need now is another test before we can even consider how we get the country moving again.


No. We "get the country moving again" by letting people move again!!! We can advise and inform the people how to best protect themselves and others with social distancing, proper hygiene, minimal public contact, isolating at first sign of symptoms, etc. We can encourage and inform people how to eat properly, take Vitamins C and/or D3, get plenty of sun and fresh air, and sleep, and otherwise fortify the body and immune system. We can educate and prepare people to know how to nurse and nurture their own bodies when they do get sick, to help prevent complications from developing.

We can conduct random testing of the population on an ongoing basis to estimate/project the number of patients hospitals and health providers can expect, and when enough of the population has had the virus so medical facilities can plan and prepare appropriately. And the people can also plan and prepare appropriately.


Maybe a DNA test to see who is more susceptible to acute reactions to the virus...


Hell no. No one has the right to demand or impose any medical test or procedure on anyone.


...than my friends, than we can start to consider how to get back to work.


We can get back to work right now. None of this was necessary or PROPER to begin with.



posted on Apr, 21 2020 @ 07:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: DanDanDat

You seemed to have ignored the fact that this most probably indicates an inaccuracy in the antibody tests administered.

No measurement in real science is ever assumed to be error-free. In fact, the hardest part of the experimentation part of the scientific method is the determination of the sources of error and the margins of error one may reasonably expect.

If a single type of measurement disagrees with other measurements, usually it indicates a problem with that particular method, not that the data captured with every other method is entirely incorrect.


So what you are saying is that if the particular test doesn't validate your personal political bias, then the test is naturally suspect.

Gottit.




No. If the test is giving different results than expected or than other methods, find out why.

Don't assume that the test results have a political motivation or that 'everyone is lying'.


Who said the results are unexpected?



posted on Apr, 21 2020 @ 07:23 PM
link   
a reply to: MRinder

Sorry I was being a smart a** referencing Americans would rather carry a gun and shoot it out than get in a fist fight....was trying to be funny.

For the record, I really like Americans and wish we had your gun laws.



posted on Apr, 21 2020 @ 07:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: IAMALLYETALLIAM
a reply to: MRinder

Sorry I was being a smart a** referencing Americans would rather carry a gun and shoot it out than get in a fist fight....was trying to be funny.

For the record, I really like Americans and wish we had your gun laws.


It's all good. 🙂



posted on Apr, 21 2020 @ 07:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

Yeah, its a bit "funny" that some have been convinced that the answers to the problems created by our reaction is to.. double down and keep doing it? With some nice added draconian measures each time?

Im not so sure any of it was necessary either but "we didnt know what we were dealing with" and all that. Different regions and locations probably have different needs, etc.

Id say the marker for it all would be to lift lockdowns, watching out for medical system capacity according to area, and adjust as needed.

It seems like many folks were lecturing on the lockdowns solely being about managing the medical apparatus, and that it would only spread infections/deaths over time.. And now its being said we need to do more of the same because people are still getting sick.

It was never about whether or not people got sick, it was (ostensibly) about spreading it out.

Time to start shifting gears and managing things in real time according to hospital occupancy (the thing this was all supposed to be based on). Slowly, sure.. But *not* in the other direction.



posted on Apr, 21 2020 @ 08:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: DanDanDat

You seemed to have ignored the fact that this most probably indicates an inaccuracy in the antibody tests administered.

No measurement in real science is ever assumed to be error-free. In fact, the hardest part of the experimentation part of the scientific method is the determination of the sources of error and the margins of error one may reasonably expect.

If a single type of measurement disagrees with other measurements, usually it indicates a problem with that particular method, not that the data captured with every other method is entirely incorrect.


So what you are saying is that if the particular test doesn't validate your personal political bias, then the test is naturally suspect.

Gottit.




No. If the test is giving different results than expected or than other methods, find out why.

Don't assume that the test results have a political motivation or that 'everyone is lying'.


Who said the results are unexpected?


Those that have assumed that the officially measured statistics are close to the truth, rather than an estimate, based upon a supposition that ignores the possibility of margins of error in testing, such as the article linked in the OP.

And face it, who exactly would be perpetrating such lies, and how would they organize such a massive conspiracy, and what advantage might they be gaining from it?

edit on 21/4/2020 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2020 @ 08:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: DanDanDat

You seemed to have ignored the fact that this most probably indicates an inaccuracy in the antibody tests administered.

No measurement in real science is ever assumed to be error-free. In fact, the hardest part of the experimentation part of the scientific method is the determination of the sources of error and the margins of error one may reasonably expect.

If a single type of measurement disagrees with other measurements, usually it indicates a problem with that particular method, not that the data captured with every other method is entirely incorrect.


So what you are saying is that if the particular test doesn't validate your personal political bias, then the test is naturally suspect.

Gottit.




No. If the test is giving different results than expected or than other methods, find out why.

Don't assume that the test results have a political motivation or that 'everyone is lying'.


Who said the results are unexpected?


Those that have assumed that the officially measured statistics are close to the truth, rather than an estimate, based upon a supposition that ignores the possibility of margins of error in testing, such as the article linked in the OP.


Still not following you; the officially measured statistics have always been suspected as inaccurate from the beginning. The result of not enough testing.

There is no incongruity between this study and officially measured statistics. The numbers where always going to change as more testing is conducted.



posted on Apr, 21 2020 @ 08:23 PM
link   
a reply to: DanDanDat

Hahahaha!

What a way to interpret this!

What this study also shows is that because the number of infected is perhaps fifty times more than what has been reported, it means the virus mortality rate is fifty times lower than reported

Putting in at the high range of a bad flu season

But yep, to you that means lock down more

Lol!



posted on Apr, 21 2020 @ 08:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI


Certainly doesnt stop politicians and media from swamping the public with many differing stats.


Yes...something stinks to high heaven with the testing business. I think I read $25 billion in the new package just for testing.

I also read, a few weeks ago, that we'd need 1/3 of people tested every day to get up and running again. That's a massive amount of tests.

And what are the results going to be used for? To inform employers which employees will be out sick with COVID-19 and to order them to shut down if there are *too many* positives? Not only would that undermine the HIPAA, but it would be a system some could profit from abusing.

Testing has been handled ridiculously, so far, and they're notoriously inaccurate. Why are we throwing billions at unnecessary tests when we could spend it on things that might actually help slow the spread...like making PPE accessible to everyone?

There's been too many screw ups regarding the testing for my comfort. Until they get their sh** together with the tests, I don't think we should be spending any more money on them. Test when medically necessary, and that's it.

I suspect massive amounts of mandatory testing will lead to further civil unrest, at some point. That will probably be made good use of, too.



edit on 4/21/2020 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2020 @ 08:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: DanDanDat

Hahahaha!

What a way to interpret this!

What this study also shows is that because the number of infected is perhaps fifty times more than what has been reported, it means the virus mortality rate is fifty times lower than reported

Putting in at the high range of a bad flu season

But yep, to you that means lock down more

Lol!


Your going to have to be more clear with your opinion. Are you now agreeing with the study and calling for a tapering to the social distancing measures because the study has shown the virus might not be as deadly as once thought?

Also I am not the person who cautioned that these results could mean that the social distancing measures should remain in place. That was a caution from Neeraj Sood, public policy professor at the University of Southern California and lead investigator in the study.

----

Oh shoot I mixed your name up with another post. My apologies. Disregard; I now understand what you are saying.




edit on 21-4-2020 by DanDanDat because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-4-2020 by DanDanDat because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join