ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake
ORIGINAL: HansBolter
From Briebart this morning:
L.A. County Study: Coronavirus Outbreak Up to 55 Times More Widespread, Less Deadly than Predicted
The novel coronavirus has infected roughly 4.1 percent of the population in California’s Los Angeles County, suggesting the region’s outbreak is far more widespread than previously thought, between 28 and 55 times higher than the number of confirmed cases, new research shows, echoing the findings of a similar study elsewhere in the state.
However, the new data, if accurate, also indicates that the coronavirus death rate in L.A. County, the most populous in the country, is lower than initially predicted. Researchers from the University of Southern California (USC) and the L.A. Department of Public Health gleaned the data from antibody testing of about 863 county residents. Antibodies are an indication that an individual’s immune system has responded to a past infection.
On Monday, CNBC reported:
USC and the health department released preliminary study results that found that roughly 4.1% of the county’s adult population has antibodies to the coronavirus, estimating that between 221,000 adults to 442,000 adults in the county have had the infection.
This new estimate is 28 to 55 times higher than the 7,994 confirmed cases of Covid-19 [coronavirus illness] reported to the county in early April. The number of coronavirus-related deaths in the county has now surpassed 600, according to the Department of Public Health. The data, if correct, would mean that the county’s fatality rate is lower than originally thought.
Link to the article: https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020 ... predicted/
That is quite similar to the Santa Clara County study.
Pretty grandiose extrapolation based on 863 samples. Out of a population of 10M, what is that? .00863%. I don't have the gumption to run that through sample size calculators right now, but I doubt the statistical validity of extrapolating such miniscule sample numbers to the entire population of LA County. It's a fine line between statistically valid population sampling / extrapolating that information to a larger population versus a sop for the masses.
From the article: "If you have one percent of your population infected and you have a test that’s only 99 percent specific that means that when you find a positive, 50 percent of the time will be a real positive, and 50 percent it won’t be. And that’s why we’re really asking people to start testing in among the first responders and the health care workers who may have had the greatest exposures because that’s where the tests will be most reliable and then when we have the luxury we can go out to broader and broader communities".
New York state has tested >660,000 people for the virus (RT-PCR): 3.4%. About 1.2% of the population is positive for the virus. How 'random' serology testing of 0.0015% of the population (3,000 people) will provide actionable information that can be extrapolated to the whole body is beyond me. I'm leaning towards a sop.
I'm not sure how this changes any decisions either. So the LA county IFR is much lower than we thought it was in January. Big whoop. Now what? The USC epi guy is suggesting that this means that we're 'early' in the outbreak for LA county then. Totally bogus line of reasoning. You will *never* get 100.0% exposure to these sorts of community agents. These things reach a saturation point well below that and peter out. One could argue that-based on waning clinical case submissions-that this thing has shot its bolt in the population at hand and will wane over time.
And finding lots of asymptomatic seroconverters / lower IFR augurs towards downplaying the significance of this outbreak. As we drive IFR closer to 0, people will be unable to distinguish between this and seasonal influenza / the common cold. And they will bristle at those restrictions on our daily lives that differ from normal seasonal influenza restrictions (to whit: none).
So caveat emptor-be careful what you look for, because you may find it. Now that you found it, now what?








