So... some of you did see the issue. Tree slayed the answer. Thank you for explaining that because I was wondering.
just to recap the issues i saw...
The article spoke of antibody tests and a group of people who had exhibited as symptom in the last month... making one think the point of the study was to see if perhaps more of us had Covid and did not know it. And, give us some hope we may have a community building immunity or that RO is lower... (I understand the risk with those assumption.... no condescending lectures from a lefty are needed)
But, the officials spoke as if this showed the people were infectious almost as if the people had taken Covid 19 tests and a positive for antibodies is the same as a positive for an active infections.
Finally, it could just be poorly written by the author. Who probably should have followed up with they officials since their responses seemed off.
just to recap the issues i saw...
The article spoke of antibody tests and a group of people who had exhibited as symptom in the last month... making one think the point of the study was to see if perhaps more of us had Covid and did not know it. And, give us some hope we may have a community building immunity or that RO is lower... (I understand the risk with those assumption.... no condescending lectures from a lefty are needed)
But, the officials spoke as if this showed the people were infectious almost as if the people had taken Covid 19 tests and a positive for antibodies is the same as a positive for an active infections.
Finally, it could just be poorly written by the author. Who probably should have followed up with they officials since their responses seemed off.