Glock Forum - GlockTalk banner

1 - 20 of 37 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
81,078 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
"Testing shows hundreds of thousands in LA County may have been infected with coronavirus


The coronavirus outbreak in Los Angeles County is believed to have infected at least 200,000 people by early April, which would far surpass the number of officially confirmed cases, according to a report on Monday.

A large scale study by the University of Southern California and the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health found that 4.1 percent of the county’s adult population has antibodies to the virus in their blood, which is an indicator of past exposure.

Based on the county's population, that means that between 221,000 adults to 442,000 adults in the area have previously been infected, the study estimated.



The estimated infection numbers are 28 to 55 times higher than the 7,994 confirmed COVID-19 cases L.A. County had reported at the time of the study in early April.


https://www.foxnews.com/health/coro...ows-hundreds-of-thousands-l-a-county-infected "
 

·
NRA Life Member
Joined
·
66,481 Posts
Similar results in Massachusettes recently. Random testing of 200 people on the street showed:

A THIRD of participants in Massachusetts study test positive for antibodies linked to COVID-19 after giving their blood samples in the street at random

Researchers collected drops of blood from residents in Bellingham Square on Tuesday and Wednesday after advertising the study.

Of the 200 voluntary participants, 64 had antibodies created by their immune systems to fight the coronavirus.

Although researchers noted that the participants appeared healthy, around half told doctors they experienced at least one COVID-19 symptom in the past four weeks.

Additionally, researchers determined that 32 percent of participants have already had COVID-19 and several had no idea.

Residents who previously tested positive for COVID-19 were excluded from the study and identities remained anonymous.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,020 Posts
Similar results in Massachusettes recently. Random testing of 200 people on the street showed:

A THIRD of participants in Massachusetts study test positive for antibodies linked to COVID-19 after giving their blood samples in the street at random

Researchers collected drops of blood from residents in Bellingham Square on Tuesday and Wednesday after advertising the study.

Of the 200 voluntary participants, 64 had antibodies created by their immune systems to fight the coronavirus.

Although researchers noted that the participants appeared healthy, around half told doctors they experienced at least one COVID-19 symptom in the past four weeks.

Additionally, researchers determined that 32 percent of participants have already had COVID-19 and several had no idea.

Residents who previously tested positive for COVID-19 were excluded from the study and identities remained anonymous.
and this seems to mirror the Chicago study (albeit a small sample). This is hopeful when a big percent of the population is no longer a potential host. And I suspect this is why china is seeing low rates of new infections.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,803 Posts
This study used the same Chinese designed and manufactured test kit as the Santa Clara County study, a kit which has been banned for export by China and not approved for quality control by the National Medical Product Administration of China. All of the data regarding the accuracy of this test kit is coming from the manufacturer Hangzhou Biotest Biotech Co. The sensitivity and specificity testing of this kit that was done at Stanford was on groups so small as to be meaningless, especially the specificity testing.

So we are talking about a test kit designed in China, manufactured in China, and tested in China which the Chinese government will not stand behind and has in fact banned for export at this time.

The test group for this study was even smaller than that for the Santa Clara Study, although it sounds as if attempts were made to assure that is was somewhat more representative than that of the other study. But the total test group size was only 863 people of which 4.1% tested positive (35 people). So the investigators are extrapolating test results in 35 people to a general population of well over 10 million people.

When you do that sort of thing a relatively small number of false positives will drastically alter your projections to an enormously larger group, as well any selection bias in your test group.

To give credence to this study, all 35 individuals who tested positive should be retested for antibodies using an ELISA assay.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,253 Posts
I personally believe this virus has been around in the states since at least early December. Hundreds of thousands have already recovered from it nationwide and I'm sure many died from it before we ever had tests. I believe the many studies estimating 3-4% of certain populations already had it.

Anecdotal story..many years ago, my mother was experiencing some muscle stiffness and fatigue for several months. It was an inconvenience to her but not debilitating. She finally went to the doctor who diagnosed her with fibromyalgia. Immediately after the diagnosis, her symptoms increased 10 fold. All of a sudden, she couldn't get out of bed in the mornings and started claiming she couldn't hold on to things anymore because her hands were so weak. I think this is relevant to how we handled the virus here. It had been here for months but once we knew it was here...well, we know the rest.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,797 Posts
I think this is relevant to how we handled the virus here. It had been here for months but once we knew it was here...well, we know the rest.
I'm pretty sure the sudden spike in unresponsives and cardiac arrests I've had in my coverage area haven't been from the power of suggestion.
 

·
NRA Member
Joined
·
1,252 Posts
There are 3 types of lies:

Lies
Damned Lies
STATISTICS
 
  • Like
Reactions: Neldon

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,253 Posts
I'm pretty sure the sudden spike in unresponsives and cardiac arrests I've had in my coverage area haven't been from the power of suggestion.
Did they have covid symptoms? Were they tested? Does covid cause heart attacks? I haven't heard that yet. I read a NYT article stating heart attacks were way down (Or maybe being reclassified?)

I don't deny a lot of people are dying from covid. I do, however, think the death counts out of new york are inflated. The motivation to do so? I don't know yet.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,029 Posts
i am still convinced that this wouldn't be anywhere near the issue it is, if it was not a Presidential Election year...
i remember Hepatitis being a big concern years back, and still should be, but it didn't affect our lifestyle and economy as this is....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,797 Posts
Did they have covid symptoms? Were they tested?
Many have both had symptoms and tested positive.

Does covid cause heart attacks? I haven't heard that yet.
Cardiac arrest (cessation of mechanical activity of the heart) can have many causes. This is not the same as a heart attack (damage to heart muscle due to decreased blood flow).
 

·
Smartass Pilot
Joined
·
20,786 Posts
I'm not sure why so many seem to think this is a good thing. If there are that many cases out there that are relatively mild or asymptomatic then that means there is nothing to stop a resurgence in growth the moment we start relaxing current policies. It's not nearly enough to achieve any level of herd immunity, but it's plenty to fuel more spikes in severe cases once these people are out and about again.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
35,021 Posts
This study used the same Chinese designed and manufactured test kit as the Santa Clara County study, a kit which has been banned for export by China and not approved for quality control by the National Medical Product Administration of China. All of the data regarding the accuracy of this test kit is coming from the manufacturer Hangzhou Biotest Biotech Co. The sensitivity and specificity testing of this kit that was done at Stanford was on groups so small as to be meaningless, especially the specificity testing.

So we are talking about a test kit designed in China, manufactured in China, and tested in China which the Chinese government will not stand behind and has in fact banned for export at this time.

The test group for this study was even smaller than that for the Santa Clara Study, although it sounds as if attempts were made to assure that is was somewhat more representative than that of the other study. But the total test group size was only 863 people of which 4.1% tested positive (35 people). So the investigators are extrapolating test results in 35 people to a general population of well over 10 million people.

When you do that sort of thing a relatively small number of false positives will drastically alter your projections to an enormously larger group, as well any selection bias in your test group.

To give credence to this study, all 35 individuals who tested positive should be retested for antibodies using an ELISA assay.
What does the Central Limit Theorem say about estimating populations from sample? What is a generally accepted number that statistically is used to estimate population from a sample?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
35,021 Posts
Did they have covid symptoms? Were they tested? Does covid cause heart attacks? I haven't heard that yet. I read a NYT article stating heart attacks were way down (Or maybe being reclassified?)

I don't deny a lot of people are dying from covid. I do, however, think the death counts out of new york are inflated. The motivation to do so? I don't know yet.
1. Federal emergency funding.
2. Attempts to go after the POTUS for political gain.
3. Test how much control the government has over people.
4. Power hungry local politicians being able to exercise power they never had before (and likely legally dont have).
5. Put doctors / dentists out of work so they accept single payer health care.
6. Make socialism see the only way to save the USA from an invisble boogy man.
7. The unelected bureaucrats wants to show who is in control

Do we need more?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
35,021 Posts
I'm not sure why so many seem to think this is a good thing. If there are that many cases out there that are relatively mild or asymptomatic then that means there is nothing to stop a resurgence in growth the moment we start relaxing current policies. It's not nearly enough to achieve any level of herd immunity, but it's plenty to fuel more spikes in severe cases once these people are out and about again.
The more people that have had it compared to the number of deaths makes for a lower morbidity rate. I would think a lower morbidity rate from a disease is a good thing?

The only people that a lower morbidity rate is bad for is politicians who said we need to be on lock down or we all die.

Which do you think is better?

A 10% death rate or 0.2% death rate?

If what is coming out is true, and the infection rate is 50X greater than thought, that means the death rate goes down 50X. That is the as going from 10% to 0.2%.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,934 Posts
I think it important to remember that this virus is more infective than the flu. Also, it is new, so we have no knowledge of how it will develop over the next year or two.

Let's suppose that the actual COVID CFR is 0.1%, like the flu. We can always hope, right? It is expected that this virus will infect 40% - 70% of the US population.

320,000,000 x .40 x .001 = 128,000 dead
320,000,000 x .70 x .001 = 228,000 dead

Not the end of the world. But worse than the flu. At best.

That is about the best we can hope for. For our first dance with this thing. We have no idea what kind of immunity will be conferred to people after an asymptomatic or mild case.

And we do not know if we will get a vaccine. Let's just say I wouldn't hold my breath waiting.

I'm not suggesting we keep the lockdowns. We have to reopen. Mostly. Some things, maybe not. Or, maybe not 'til later. But we need to recognize that people are going to continue to get sick and die, and perhaps in alarming numbers.
 

·
Smartass Pilot
Joined
·
20,786 Posts
The more people that have had it compared to the number of deaths makes for a lower morbidity rate. I would think a lower morbidity rate from a disease is a good thing?
Granted, that is a fair point. The lower the better. But the flip side is that there is no reason to think that we won't be swamped with plenty of severe cases and deaths again the moment we open up to much. With that many cases out there it has to be way more contagious than we thought. The fire is still smoldering, there is no reason to add fuel to it that we don't absolutely have to.
 
1 - 20 of 37 Posts
Top