This is actually much higher than I would've thought and good news if the stats are of randomized populations.
1/3 in Mass study have antibodies... is this a b.s. narrative in action
- Thread starter jem
- Start date
This is actually much higher than I would've thought and good news if the stats are of randomized populations.
Yes. The larger the antibody rate, the slower the infection rate and the closer we get back to normal. (Theoretically)
It may mean that eventually but in the short run a larger antibody rate than expected means there is or has been a faster infection rate than anticipated but less symptomatic.
I am just playing along with the numbers and the discussion. I need another 2-3 weeks to see numbers find numbers that are not bogus in amongst the garbage.
Let me ask... what is the source of this graph. Clearly it is just an estimate. What is the basis of the estimate of these numbers.
Seeing that wide-open societies like Sweden are estimated to still be below a 10% infection rate in urban areas and probably closer to 3%. I don't see how these numbers for Long Island and New York are above 15% for presumed positive.
but many of us have known that it is likely much more covid was in the community than the models or time lines show.
I know for a fact numerous family members and friends who went to hospitals and tested negative for flu. T
my wife's friends went skiing back in early feb. 5 out of 8 got sick. now they have antibodies.
I know similar stories from family and friends...
we had it early. most likely.
in short this is one more reason to understand the data was dreadfully useless.
I know for a fact numerous family members and friends who went to hospitals and tested negative for flu. T
my wife's friends went skiing back in early feb. 5 out of 8 got sick. now they have antibodies.
I know similar stories from family and friends...
we had it early. most likely.
in short this is one more reason to understand the data was dreadfully useless.
Last edited:
Random samplings are useful and powerful.
There should be a team in every large city taking random samples on a street corner downtown. It does offer a way to get a grip on infection rate and so allows some estimate of mortality. I'm surprised random testing is not occurring on a large scale.
I still say its problematic to test the entire population but the random surveys I do think are meaningful.
BTW.... I found out the slide is from Governor Cuomo's briefing today. Note that this is a sample of only 3000 people.
A sample population of 3,000 people for a population of 19,000,000amounts to a confidence level better than 2, which is actually pretty good.
https://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm
I would be more concerned with the randomness and demographics of the sampled population. Also, when these tests were taken and what test was used.
From what we know about the tests the accuracy fails to identify positives when it fails so the reported infection rates/antibody positives may actually be *lower* than the actual population.
I didn’t run through the weighting to see if they adjusted for error rates in the tests, or how they weighted the population/demographics.
Wow, talk about a post that did not age well on many fronts. You believe every lie they send you way.