[dabigv13]

Important work being done to evaluate some of the antibody tests on the market by the below group.

https://covidtestingproject.org/

They've tested 10 different antibody tests so far, including the one imported by Premier, which was the test used in the Santa Clara and LA studies. In testing the specificity of the test, they checked 108 samples from 2018, before Covid19 existed, and found 3 positives, for a false positive rate of 2.8%, much higher than the 0.5% the Santa Clara paper indicates (2 positives out of 371, though this was by the manufacturer; they also validated with 30 samples at Stanford and had no false positives).

So essentially their entire findings could be explained by the false positives of their test, and their study doesn't meaningfully contribute to our knowledge of covid prevalence in SCC (or LA), though a prevalence of 1-4% remains plausible.

[dabigv13]

Important work being done to evaluate some of the antibody tests on the market by the below group.

https://covidtestingproject.org/

They've tested 10 different antibody tests so far, including the one imported by Premier, which was the test used in the Santa Clara and LA studies. In testing the specificity of the test, they checked 108 samples from 2018, before Covid19 existed, and found 3 positives, for a false positive rate of 2.8%, much higher than the 0.5% the Santa Clara paper indicates (2 positives out of 371, though this was by the manufacturer; they also validated with 30 samples at Stanford and had no false positives).

So essentially their entire findings could be explained by the false positives of their test, and their study doesn't meaningfully contribute to our knowledge of covid prevalence in SCC (or LA), though a prevalence of 1-4% remains plausible.