[TreesAndBirds]

My doc has informed me that the Covid antibody test is now available at Stanford. 

Will obviously be very interesting to see how many people test positive (and had minimal symptoms), although even having antibodies/prior infection does not of course assure immunity.

[TreesAndBirds]

My doc has informed me that the Covid antibody test is now available at Stanford. 

Will obviously be very interesting to see how many people test positive (and had minimal symptoms), although even having antibodies/prior infection does not of course assure immunity.

[Mick]

My doc has informed me that the Covid antibody test is now available at Stanford. 

Will obviously be very interesting to see how many people test positive (and had minimal symptoms), although even having antibodies/prior infection does not of course assure immunity.

Do you need an appointment, or a referral, or can you just walk in?

[Mick]

My doc has informed me that the Covid antibody test is now available at Stanford. 

Will obviously be very interesting to see how many people test positive (and had minimal symptoms), although even having antibodies/prior infection does not of course assure immunity.

Do you need an appointment, or a referral, or can you just walk in?

[TreesAndBirds]

A doc has to order the test. I dont know the details but my doc who is in private practice (ie, not a Stanford doc) offered to order it, but suggested waiting a couple weeks to get some preliminary info on how the test is working, and to let the curve flatten so that less risk in spending time in a clinic waiting room.

[TreesAndBirds]

A doc has to order the test. I dont know the details but my doc who is in private practice (ie, not a Stanford doc) offered to order it, but suggested waiting a couple weeks to get some preliminary info on how the test is working, and to let the curve flatten so that less risk in spending time in a clinic waiting room.

[Mick]

A doc has to order the test. I dont know the details but my doc who is in private practice (ie, not a Stanford doc) offered to order it, but suggested waiting a couple weeks to get some preliminary info on how the test is working, and to let the curve flatten so that less risk in spending time in a clinic waiting room.

There's a theory that Californians have some degree of herd immunity because the virus may have been introduced to the state late last year.  I wanted to take the antibody test because in December I was floored for two weeks with similar symptoms and a wracking cough which persisted for six weeks.  My college roommate lives in Santa Ana and he and his son had all of these symptoms in January.

https://abc7news.com/coronavirus-covid-1...a/6091220/

[Mick]

A doc has to order the test. I dont know the details but my doc who is in private practice (ie, not a Stanford doc) offered to order it, but suggested waiting a couple weeks to get some preliminary info on how the test is working, and to let the curve flatten so that less risk in spending time in a clinic waiting room.

There's a theory that Californians have some degree of herd immunity because the virus may have been introduced to the state late last year.  I wanted to take the antibody test because in December I was floored for two weeks with similar symptoms and a wracking cough which persisted for six weeks.  My college roommate lives in Santa Ana and he and his son had all of these symptoms in January.

https://abc7news.com/coronavirus-covid-1...a/6091220/

[magnus]

There's a theory that Californians have some degree of herd immunity because the virus may have been introduced to the state late last year.  I wanted to take the antibody test because in December I was floored for two weeks with similar symptoms and a wracking cough which persisted for six weeks.  My college roommate lives in Santa Ana and he and his son had all of these symptoms in January.

https://abc7news.com/coronavirus-covid-1...a/6091220/

I would think that a really nasty flu season still wouldn't have the same kind of impact as this novel coronavirus has had on our healthcare system.  Perhaps a different less virulent strain?

[magnus]

There's a theory that Californians have some degree of herd immunity because the virus may have been introduced to the state late last year.  I wanted to take the antibody test because in December I was floored for two weeks with similar symptoms and a wracking cough which persisted for six weeks.  My college roommate lives in Santa Ana and he and his son had all of these symptoms in January.

https://abc7news.com/coronavirus-covid-1...a/6091220/

I would think that a really nasty flu season still wouldn't have the same kind of impact as this novel coronavirus has had on our healthcare system.  Perhaps a different less virulent strain?

[2006alum]

A doc has to order the test. I dont know the details but my doc who is in private practice (ie, not a Stanford doc) offered to order it, but suggested waiting a couple weeks to get some preliminary info on how the test is working, and to let the curve flatten so that less risk in spending time in a clinic waiting room.

There's a theory that Californians have some degree of herd immunity because the virus may have been introduced to the state late last year.  I wanted to take the antibody test because in December I was floored for two weeks with similar symptoms and a wracking cough which persisted for six weeks.  My college roommate lives in Santa Ana and he and his son had all of these symptoms in January.

https://abc7news.com/coronavirus-covid-1...a/6091220/

Since we have been discussing experts staying in their lanes, you might find this background detail about this theory informative:

[tweet]https://twitter.com/carlzimmer/status/1248669152820297730?s=20[/tweet]

And then there's this:
[tweet]https://twitter.com/summerbrennan/status/1248458481092321282?s=20[/tweet]

More generally, the likelihood that California is anywhere near herd immunity is basically fantasy. In a "hard hit" town in Germany they did random seriological testing and even there found only 14% had antibodies. And that was an area where there was an intense, known outbreak:
[tweet]https://twitter.com/AdamJKucharski/status/1248188438098182145?s=20[/tweet]

[2006alum]

A doc has to order the test. I dont know the details but my doc who is in private practice (ie, not a Stanford doc) offered to order it, but suggested waiting a couple weeks to get some preliminary info on how the test is working, and to let the curve flatten so that less risk in spending time in a clinic waiting room.

There's a theory that Californians have some degree of herd immunity because the virus may have been introduced to the state late last year.  I wanted to take the antibody test because in December I was floored for two weeks with similar symptoms and a wracking cough which persisted for six weeks.  My college roommate lives in Santa Ana and he and his son had all of these symptoms in January.

https://abc7news.com/coronavirus-covid-1...a/6091220/

Since we have been discussing experts staying in their lanes, you might find this background detail about this theory informative:

[tweet]https://twitter.com/carlzimmer/status/1248669152820297730?s=20[/tweet]

And then there's this:
[tweet]https://twitter.com/summerbrennan/status/1248458481092321282?s=20[/tweet]

More generally, the likelihood that California is anywhere near herd immunity is basically fantasy. In a "hard hit" town in Germany they did random seriological testing and even there found only 14% had antibodies. And that was an area where there was an intense, known outbreak:
[tweet]https://twitter.com/AdamJKucharski/status/1248188438098182145?s=20[/tweet]

[Snorlax94]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/carlzimmer/status/1248669152820297730?s=20[/tweet]

LOL, by coincidence, my wife and I were just commenting on this story, which I originally saw in the San Jose Mercury News and we were commenting how much the Mercury News has fallen.

Victor Hanson is a Hoover Fellow and military historian who often comments "outside of his lane." His recent columns have titles like "The dangers of elite group think", "Is Trump the Only Adult In the Room?" and, regarding the impeachment, "Suddenly the 'coup' concerns don't seem far-fetched."

To my knowledge, Victor Hanson has no affiliation with Stanford Hospital, Stanford Medical School, and this recent serum study, and it was inappropriate (and in fact, shameful) the MercuryNews and ABC7 News made it appear that he could represent the goals of that study. In general, Hoover fellows are not the appropriate spokesperson for Stanford medical studies, and should never be conflated as such. It's really, really shamefully bad journalism, and I worry whether journalists were pressured to use Hanson as a "source."

[Snorlax94]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/carlzimmer/status/1248669152820297730?s=20[/tweet]

LOL, by coincidence, my wife and I were just commenting on this story, which I originally saw in the San Jose Mercury News and we were commenting how much the Mercury News has fallen.

Victor Hanson is a Hoover Fellow and military historian who often comments "outside of his lane." His recent columns have titles like "The dangers of elite group think", "Is Trump the Only Adult In the Room?" and, regarding the impeachment, "Suddenly the 'coup' concerns don't seem far-fetched."

To my knowledge, Victor Hanson has no affiliation with Stanford Hospital, Stanford Medical School, and this recent serum study, and it was inappropriate (and in fact, shameful) the MercuryNews and ABC7 News made it appear that he could represent the goals of that study. In general, Hoover fellows are not the appropriate spokesperson for Stanford medical studies, and should never be conflated as such. It's really, really shamefully bad journalism, and I worry whether journalists were pressured to use Hanson as a "source."

[dabigv13]

Yeah, no way was this in our communities in big numbers before February. We would have seen filled up ICUs a lot earlier if so given how virulent this disease is.

We all wish that bad cold we had was this, but odds are much greater it was just a bad cold, because they are just far more common. Even now, positive test rates are in the low teens in California, and those are symptomatic patients. In NYC it's more like 40 to 50%. Caveat being we dont know just how accurate these tests all are.

[dabigv13]

Yeah, no way was this in our communities in big numbers before February. We would have seen filled up ICUs a lot earlier if so given how virulent this disease is.

We all wish that bad cold we had was this, but odds are much greater it was just a bad cold, because they are just far more common. Even now, positive test rates are in the low teens in California, and those are symptomatic patients. In NYC it's more like 40 to 50%. Caveat being we dont know just how accurate these tests all are.

[Mick]

Since we have been discussing experts staying in their lanes, you might find this background detail about this theory informative:
[tweet]https://twitter.com/carlzimmer/status/1248669152820297730?s=20[/tweet]

It's a 23-paragraph article, with two paragraphs by the classics professor, and it is focused on Stanford's antibody test which, presumably, is not being conducted by Classics professors.  All the professor is doing is pointing out that California's COVID-19 experience is markedly different from that of any other state.  He doesn't theorize about it, all he's saying is that the comparative lack of infections in California doesn't add up, particularly given the 8,000 visitors per day that visited California from Wuhan all throughout 2019.  As of right now, on a per capita basis, New York has 17x the infections that California does, New Jersey has 12x and Michigan has 4.4x. And that's when California faced more frequent visitors from Wuhan.

He's just framing the question.  The answer will be available in a few weeks.

[Mick]

Since we have been discussing experts staying in their lanes, you might find this background detail about this theory informative:
[tweet]https://twitter.com/carlzimmer/status/1248669152820297730?s=20[/tweet]

It's a 23-paragraph article, with two paragraphs by the classics professor, and it is focused on Stanford's antibody test which, presumably, is not being conducted by Classics professors.  All the professor is doing is pointing out that California's COVID-19 experience is markedly different from that of any other state.  He doesn't theorize about it, all he's saying is that the comparative lack of infections in California doesn't add up, particularly given the 8,000 visitors per day that visited California from Wuhan all throughout 2019.  As of right now, on a per capita basis, New York has 17x the infections that California does, New Jersey has 12x and Michigan has 4.4x. And that's when California faced more frequent visitors from Wuhan.

He's just framing the question.  The answer will be available in a few weeks.

[BostonCard]

There is nothing in the data to suggest anything unusual through week 8 (last week in February) of 2020.

https://gis.cdc.gov/grasp/fluview/mortality.html

After week 8, there's a brobdingnagian spike, possibly coinciding with Covid-19.

Until Covid took hold, the data on proportion of positives was about as expected:



BC

[BostonCard]

There is nothing in the data to suggest anything unusual through week 8 (last week in February) of 2020.

https://gis.cdc.gov/grasp/fluview/mortality.html

After week 8, there's a brobdingnagian spike, possibly coinciding with Covid-19.

Until Covid took hold, the data on proportion of positives was about as expected:



BC

[2006alum]

More graphical evidence that this is no flu:

[tweet]https://twitter.com/NAChristakis/status/1248726842665811974?s=20[/tweet]

[2006alum]

More graphical evidence that this is no flu:

[tweet]https://twitter.com/NAChristakis/status/1248726842665811974?s=20[/tweet]

[2006alum]

No, You Did Not Get COVID-19 in the Fall of 2019, part 2:

[tweet]https://twitter.com/jane_c_hu/status/1248659738104967173?s=20[/tweet]

Let’s start with the facts. I reached out to Stanford Medicine to try to understand the goals of its antibody test, and how it relates to Hanson’s fall 2019 theory. The short answer on the latter is that it doesn’t. “Our research does not suggest that the virus was here that early,” says Lisa Kim of Stanford’s media relations team. . . .

If genomics aren’t your thing, consider this: If the virus had arrived earlier, we would have known. Humans have no natural immunity to this new virus, which is why it’s spreading quickly, infecting millions and killing tens of thousands. That’s evident in what’s going on in New York right now, says Black. “If it had arrived in fall of 2019, and we were all living our lives as normal, we would’ve had New York back in fall of 2019,” she says. There’s no reason why this virus would have spread undetected for months before wreaking the havoc it has.

So what’s really behind this theory? It might be worth considering the source. KSBW’s piece begins by mentioning Stanford Medicine’s research, then quotes Victor Davis Hanson, a Stanford-affiliated source; the piece reads as if Hanson is one of these aforementioned Stanford Medicine researchers. But Hanson is a military historian, not a doctor or scientist; he is affiliated with Stanford’s Hoover Institution, a conservative think tank.* (I reached out to Hanson for comment, but he has not responded; we will update this article if he does.) The piece makes no effort to clarify what the Hoover Institution is, and it delves into Hanson’s “theory” as a prelude to a brief explanation of Stanford Medicine’s study. Hanson’s recent work, published in National Review, suggests he is eager to reopen the American economy. It would be quite convenient, then, to claim that the virus has already torn through the U.S. and granted us immunity. (In that article, Hanson also claims that “much of the virus modeling is nearly worthless” and refers to it as “science,” in scare quotes.)

Hanson also (incorrectly) suggests that the virus’s spread in California came from “Chinese nationals” visiting California. Looking more closely at his recent work reveals a potential political motive for that claim; in a recent op-ed for Fox News, he argues that we already have too many Chinese nationals visiting, studying, or collaborating in the U.S., and that post-coronavirus America should “wake up” and make changes.

Surprise, surprise, motivated reasoning from a non-expert with an ulterior agenda.

[2006alum]

No, You Did Not Get COVID-19 in the Fall of 2019, part 2:

[tweet]https://twitter.com/jane_c_hu/status/1248659738104967173?s=20[/tweet]

Let’s start with the facts. I reached out to Stanford Medicine to try to understand the goals of its antibody test, and how it relates to Hanson’s fall 2019 theory. The short answer on the latter is that it doesn’t. “Our research does not suggest that the virus was here that early,” says Lisa Kim of Stanford’s media relations team. . . .

If genomics aren’t your thing, consider this: If the virus had arrived earlier, we would have known. Humans have no natural immunity to this new virus, which is why it’s spreading quickly, infecting millions and killing tens of thousands. That’s evident in what’s going on in New York right now, says Black. “If it had arrived in fall of 2019, and we were all living our lives as normal, we would’ve had New York back in fall of 2019,” she says. There’s no reason why this virus would have spread undetected for months before wreaking the havoc it has.

So what’s really behind this theory? It might be worth considering the source. KSBW’s piece begins by mentioning Stanford Medicine’s research, then quotes Victor Davis Hanson, a Stanford-affiliated source; the piece reads as if Hanson is one of these aforementioned Stanford Medicine researchers. But Hanson is a military historian, not a doctor or scientist; he is affiliated with Stanford’s Hoover Institution, a conservative think tank.* (I reached out to Hanson for comment, but he has not responded; we will update this article if he does.) The piece makes no effort to clarify what the Hoover Institution is, and it delves into Hanson’s “theory” as a prelude to a brief explanation of Stanford Medicine’s study. Hanson’s recent work, published in National Review, suggests he is eager to reopen the American economy. It would be quite convenient, then, to claim that the virus has already torn through the U.S. and granted us immunity. (In that article, Hanson also claims that “much of the virus modeling is nearly worthless” and refers to it as “science,” in scare quotes.)

Hanson also (incorrectly) suggests that the virus’s spread in California came from “Chinese nationals” visiting California. Looking more closely at his recent work reveals a potential political motive for that claim; in a recent op-ed for Fox News, he argues that we already have too many Chinese nationals visiting, studying, or collaborating in the U.S., and that post-coronavirus America should “wake up” and make changes.

Surprise, surprise, motivated reasoning from a non-expert with an ulterior agenda.

[teejers1]

Yeah, no way was this in our communities in big numbers before February. We would have seen filled up ICUs a lot earlier if so given how virulent this disease is.

We all wish that bad cold we had was this, but odds are much greater it was just a bad cold, because they are just far more common. Even now, positive test rates are in the low teens in California, and those are symptomatic patients. In NYC it's more like 40 to 50%. Caveat being we dont know just how accurate these tests all are.

I believe you are correct.  But Mick's post reminded me of a grad school buddy living in S.F.  When the COVID 19 announcement and shut-in came down, his reaction was "Hello, this has been in SF for months.  I've had 6 people tell me they had the worst flu of their lives in the last couple months."  Think a bad flu bug hit SF in lat 2019.

[teejers1]

Yeah, no way was this in our communities in big numbers before February. We would have seen filled up ICUs a lot earlier if so given how virulent this disease is.

We all wish that bad cold we had was this, but odds are much greater it was just a bad cold, because they are just far more common. Even now, positive test rates are in the low teens in California, and those are symptomatic patients. In NYC it's more like 40 to 50%. Caveat being we dont know just how accurate these tests all are.

I believe you are correct.  But Mick's post reminded me of a grad school buddy living in S.F.  When the COVID 19 announcement and shut-in came down, his reaction was "Hello, this has been in SF for months.  I've had 6 people tell me they had the worst flu of their lives in the last couple months."  Think a bad flu bug hit SF in lat 2019.

[Snorlax94]

He's just framing the question.  The answer will be available in a few weeks.

Nope, even before Hanson started circulating his explanation for the medical study with which he had no affiliation, there was already very strong evidence his “theory” was false:

Think you got the coronavirus last winter? Stanford doctors say it's unlikely

By Alyssa Pereira, SFGATE

...

However, a study conducted by Dr. Benjamin Pinksy, the associate professor of pathology and infectious diseases at Stanford University and medical director of Stanford’s Clinical Virology Laboratory, found that at this point in time, spread of the coronavirus was actually not yet significant.

Pinsky and his team collected samples from the backs of throats or lung airways from 2,888 patients between Jan. 1 and Feb. 26 who had tested negative for other common respiratory viruses. Then, researchers combined those samples into groups of nine or 10. From there, they pooled those 292 samples for SARS-CoV-2, or COVID-19. Just two tested positive, and further testing of those two revealed only two total out of the 2,888 were infected with COVID-19.


“I was a little surprised the prevalence was so low, but it was consistent with what our public health officials in California were observing through normal surveillance methods,” Pinsky said. “Our positives came about the same time that they were identifying an uptick in COVID-19 diagnoses.”

The result, Pinksy said, suggested that Stanford “was not experiencing significant circulation of the virus among our patients presenting for care with upper respiratory symptoms prior to the third week in February.”

[Snorlax94]

He's just framing the question.  The answer will be available in a few weeks.

Nope, even before Hanson started circulating his explanation for the medical study with which he had no affiliation, there was already very strong evidence his “theory” was false:

Think you got the coronavirus last winter? Stanford doctors say it's unlikely

By Alyssa Pereira, SFGATE

...

However, a study conducted by Dr. Benjamin Pinksy, the associate professor of pathology and infectious diseases at Stanford University and medical director of Stanford’s Clinical Virology Laboratory, found that at this point in time, spread of the coronavirus was actually not yet significant.

Pinsky and his team collected samples from the backs of throats or lung airways from 2,888 patients between Jan. 1 and Feb. 26 who had tested negative for other common respiratory viruses. Then, researchers combined those samples into groups of nine or 10. From there, they pooled those 292 samples for SARS-CoV-2, or COVID-19. Just two tested positive, and further testing of those two revealed only two total out of the 2,888 were infected with COVID-19.


“I was a little surprised the prevalence was so low, but it was consistent with what our public health officials in California were observing through normal surveillance methods,” Pinsky said. “Our positives came about the same time that they were identifying an uptick in COVID-19 diagnoses.”

The result, Pinksy said, suggested that Stanford “was not experiencing significant circulation of the virus among our patients presenting for care with upper respiratory symptoms prior to the third week in February.”

[Mick]

He's just framing the question.  The answer will be available in a few weeks.

Nope, even before Hanson started circulating his explanation for the medical study with which he had no affiliation, there was already very strong evidence his “theory” was false:

I didn't realize it was his theory, but then I don't really know the Classics prof. He created it? My sense was that he was responding to questions about the Stanford antibody study. Obviously I was incorrect. So, could you point me to where VDH originated that theory? Here's his private site, Twitter feed and list of articles. I couldn't find it anywhere.

http://victorhanson.com/
https://www.nationalreview.com/author/vi...is-hanson/
https://twitter.com/VDHanson?ref_src=tws...r%5Eauthor

[Mick]

He's just framing the question.  The answer will be available in a few weeks.

Nope, even before Hanson started circulating his explanation for the medical study with which he had no affiliation, there was already very strong evidence his “theory” was false:

I didn't realize it was his theory, but then I don't really know the Classics prof. He created it? My sense was that he was responding to questions about the Stanford antibody study. Obviously I was incorrect. So, could you point me to where VDH originated that theory? Here's his private site, Twitter feed and list of articles. I couldn't find it anywhere.

http://victorhanson.com/
https://www.nationalreview.com/author/vi...is-hanson/
https://twitter.com/VDHanson?ref_src=tws...r%5Eauthor

[BostonCard]

He's just framing the question.  The answer will be available in a few weeks.

Nope, even before Hanson started circulating his explanation for the medical study with which he had no affiliation, there was already very strong evidence his “theory” was false:

I didn't realize it was his theory, but then I don't really know the Classics prof.  He created it?  My sense was that he was responding to questions about the Stanford antibody study.  Obviously I was incorrect. So, could you point me to where VDH originated that theory?  Here's his private site, Twitter feed and list of articles.  I couldn't find it anywhere.

http://victorhanson.com/
https://www.nationalreview.com/author/vi...is-hanson/
https://twitter.com/VDHanson?ref_src=tws...r%5Eauthor

I think the critique was of the KSBW that quotes Hanson extensively:

https://www.ksbw.com/article/new-study-i...9/32073873

I have no idea how or why they picked Hanson for an article about the Stanford test.  But it was not a good piece of journalism.  I don't have an issue with Hanson expressing his opinion, even though it is out of his lane; we all do (I mean, how many of us are football coaches, and yet we don't shy away from sharing our opinion on the football team).  But one of the responsibilities of a news organization is that if they seek to get someone to comment on the news, they should get someone who is an expert in the field, not a rando with an opinion.

BC

[BostonCard]

He's just framing the question.  The answer will be available in a few weeks.

Nope, even before Hanson started circulating his explanation for the medical study with which he had no affiliation, there was already very strong evidence his “theory” was false:

I didn't realize it was his theory, but then I don't really know the Classics prof.  He created it?  My sense was that he was responding to questions about the Stanford antibody study.  Obviously I was incorrect. So, could you point me to where VDH originated that theory?  Here's his private site, Twitter feed and list of articles.  I couldn't find it anywhere.

http://victorhanson.com/
https://www.nationalreview.com/author/vi...is-hanson/
https://twitter.com/VDHanson?ref_src=tws...r%5Eauthor

I think the critique was of the KSBW that quotes Hanson extensively:

https://www.ksbw.com/article/new-study-i...9/32073873

I have no idea how or why they picked Hanson for an article about the Stanford test.  But it was not a good piece of journalism.  I don't have an issue with Hanson expressing his opinion, even though it is out of his lane; we all do (I mean, how many of us are football coaches, and yet we don't shy away from sharing our opinion on the football team).  But one of the responsibilities of a news organization is that if they seek to get someone to comment on the news, they should get someone who is an expert in the field, not a rando with an opinion.

BC

[Mick]

I think the critique was of the KSBW that quotes Hanson extensively:
https://www.ksbw.com/article/new-study-i...9/32073873
I have no idea how or why they picked Hanson for an article about the Stanford test.  But it was not a good piece of journalism.  I don't have an issue with Hanson expressing his opinion, even though it is out of his lane; we all do (I mean, how many of us are football coaches, and yet we don't shy away from sharing our opinion on the football team).  But one of the responsibilities of a news organization is that if they seek to get someone to comment on the news, they should get someone who is an expert in the field, not a rando with an opinion.
BC

That was odd, although it doesn't surprise me much. The journalist found someone that obviously fit a predetermined narrative. The journo probably sought someone affiliated with the study for comment, and those individuals (properly) wouldn't comment. A fairly common approach in my 30 year history with the media.

I was confused because prior posters referred to it as his theory. But then, it's easy to confuse me. 2006alum confuses me all the time. Kidding!

[Mick]

I think the critique was of the KSBW that quotes Hanson extensively:
https://www.ksbw.com/article/new-study-i...9/32073873
I have no idea how or why they picked Hanson for an article about the Stanford test.  But it was not a good piece of journalism.  I don't have an issue with Hanson expressing his opinion, even though it is out of his lane; we all do (I mean, how many of us are football coaches, and yet we don't shy away from sharing our opinion on the football team).  But one of the responsibilities of a news organization is that if they seek to get someone to comment on the news, they should get someone who is an expert in the field, not a rando with an opinion.
BC

That was odd, although it doesn't surprise me much. The journalist found someone that obviously fit a predetermined narrative. The journo probably sought someone affiliated with the study for comment, and those individuals (properly) wouldn't comment. A fairly common approach in my 30 year history with the media.

I was confused because prior posters referred to it as his theory. But then, it's easy to confuse me. 2006alum confuses me all the time. Kidding!

[2006alum]

Interesting perspective on the utility of serology testing:
[tweet]https://twitter.com/SmallRedOne/status/1248684548130570240?s=20[/tweet]
And here's an interesting discussion in a follow-up question:
[tweet]https://twitter.com/SmallRedOne/status/1248692734476595200?s=20[/tweet]

[2006alum]

Interesting perspective on the utility of serology testing:
[tweet]https://twitter.com/SmallRedOne/status/1248684548130570240?s=20[/tweet]
And here's an interesting discussion in a follow-up question:
[tweet]https://twitter.com/SmallRedOne/status/1248692734476595200?s=20[/tweet]

[dabigv13]

The most common ELISA antibody test I order is probably the one for Epstein-Barr Virus, or EBV, the cause of "mono". I couldn't think of a respiratory virus we test for like this, but it isn't because it wouldn't work, just in clinical practice it doesn't matter much if you have a prior exposure to a URI or flu virus, and PCR based tests are better for acute infection.

The key will be getting reliable ELISA tests, which isn't necessarily a given as she points out.

[dabigv13]

The most common ELISA antibody test I order is probably the one for Epstein-Barr Virus, or EBV, the cause of "mono". I couldn't think of a respiratory virus we test for like this, but it isn't because it wouldn't work, just in clinical practice it doesn't matter much if you have a prior exposure to a URI or flu virus, and PCR based tests are better for acute infection.

The key will be getting reliable ELISA tests, which isn't necessarily a given as she points out.

[BostonCard]

Interesting article about the “corona dark web” in New York magazine.

https://apple.news/AnZUJLV5gSeSxCGzYKJTg-g

It cites Ionnidas, though VDH wasn’t included by name.

For what it is worth I hope they are right.  If the infectious rate is higher and the mortality lower than previously believed, it would enable a more rapid reopening of the economy and it decreases the risk that extraordinary measures are needed to maintain the hospitalized patient count under control.  Even underestimating the case count by 2-3 fold would help a lot.

BC

[BostonCard]

Interesting article about the “corona dark web” in New York magazine.

https://apple.news/AnZUJLV5gSeSxCGzYKJTg-g

It cites Ionnidas, though VDH wasn’t included by name.

For what it is worth I hope they are right.  If the infectious rate is higher and the mortality lower than previously believed, it would enable a more rapid reopening of the economy and it decreases the risk that extraordinary measures are needed to maintain the hospitalized patient count under control.  Even underestimating the case count by 2-3 fold would help a lot.

BC