Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
 

Go Back   Two Plus Two Poker Forums > >

Notices

Business, Finance, and Investing Making money, investing in markets, and running businesses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old Yesterday, 05:54 AM   #7801
despacito
adept
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: $920. Funding secured.
Posts: 1,167
Re: Coronavirus

Quote:
Originally Posted by RedQueenDream View Post
Results are 2-3 months old (study says the screening/testing process was April 27 to May 11 so maybe 2 month old samples + 1 month to definitely develop antibodies) plus as you can see in the graphic the Madrid area was at 10-15% even then so not sure what this proves, other than its probably at 25-30% now the dust has settled in dense areas like many other Euro cities, and tailing off there due to saturation with some radiation through more remote areas with a time lag.
Can you show your work (ie. how you get from 5% to 30%)?

EDIT: here is the study (yet to read it myself):
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...483-5/fulltext

Quote:
Originally Posted by Study Summary (Lancet)

Background

Spain is one of the European countries most affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. Serological surveys are a valuable tool to assess the extent of the epidemic, given the existence of asymptomatic cases and little access to diagnostic tests. This nationwide population-based study aims to estimate the seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in Spain at national and regional level.

Methods

35 883 households were selected from municipal rolls using two-stage random sampling stratified by province and municipality size, with all residents invited to participate. From April 27 to May 11, 2020, 61 075 participants (751% of all contacted individuals within selected households) answered a questionnaire on history of symptoms compatible with COVID-19 and risk factors, received a point-of-care antibody test, and, if agreed, donated a blood sample for additional testing with a chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay. Prevalences of IgG antibodies were adjusted using sampling weights and post-stratification to allow for differences in non-response rates based on age group, sex, and census-tract income. Using results for both tests, we calculated a seroprevalence range maximising either specificity (positive for both tests) or sensitivity (positive for either test).

Findings

Seroprevalence was 50% (95% CI 47–54) by the point-of-care test and 46% (43–50) by immunoassay, with a specificity–sensitivity range of 37% (33–40; both tests positive) to 62% (58–66; either test positive), with no differences by sex and lower seroprevalence in children younger than 10 years (<31% by the point-of-care test). There was substantial geographical variability, with higher prevalence around Madrid (>10%) and lower in coastal areas (<3%). Seroprevalence among 195 participants with positive PCR more than 14 days before the study visit ranged from 876% (811–921; both tests positive) to 918% (863–953; either test positive). In 7273 individuals with anosmia or at least three symptoms, seroprevalence ranged from 153% (138–168) to 193% (177–210). Around a third of seropositive participants were asymptomatic, ranging from 219% (191–249) to 358% (331–385). Only 195% (163–232) of symptomatic participants who were seropositive by both the point-of-care test and immunoassay reported a previous PCR test.

Interpretation

The majority of the Spanish population is seronegative to SARS-CoV-2 infection, even in hotspot areas. Most PCR-confirmed cases have detectable antibodies, but a substantial proportion of people with symptoms compatible with COVID-19 did not have a PCR test and at least a third of infections determined by serology were asymptomatic. These results emphasise the need for maintaining public health measures to avoid a new epidemic wave.

Last edited by despacito; Yesterday at 06:04 AM.
despacito is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 06:09 AM   #7802
thethrill009
adept
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 777
Coronavirus

https://twitter.com/darrenrovell/sta...264586756?s=21

Told you in March/April.
thethrill009 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 06:35 AM   #7803
RedQueenDream
newbie
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Posts: 18
Re: Coronavirus

Quote:
Originally Posted by despacito View Post
Can you show your work (ie. how you get from 5% to 30%)?

EDIT: here is the study (yet to read it myself):
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...483-5/fulltext
All I am saying is that the Madrid area has likely gone from 10-15% antibodies as in this study 3 months ago to 25-30% now, which seems to be enough for saturation in other cities except for minor flareups (presumably with antibody resistance from other coronaviruses helping quite a bit), and that the saturated cities then likely act as a choke point for further transmission outwards which then tails off with a time lag, so rural areas probably wont get to those numbers.

As you can see it has taken 2 months to publish their findings so we won't know that for sure for a while, but this is the pattern that seems to be emerging in lots of places and my post was merely intended to squash the misinformation of the omg only 5% antibodies we are all doomed narrative.
RedQueenDream is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 07:17 AM   #7804
Howard Treesong
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Howard Treesong's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: In for the long con!
Posts: 13,100
Re: Coronavirus

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elrazor View Post
An self-proclaimed excellent poster whose takes are consistently brilliant has stated as fact that voting democrat is the biggest risk factor for an individual getting covid.

Seems entirely reasonable there would be some push back on such a claim.

Your post is from a third-grader who said "he started it." I really don't care. Just be mature and stop.
Howard Treesong is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 07:58 AM   #7805
ToothSayer
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
ToothSayer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: BFI Thought Leader
Posts: 11,066
Re: Coronavirus

Quote:
Originally Posted by RedQueenDream View Post
Results are 2-3 months old (study says the screening/testing process was April 27 to May 11 so maybe 2 month old samples + 1 month to definitely develop antibodies) plus as you can see in the graphic the Madrid area was at 10-15% even then so not sure what this proves, other than its probably at 25-30% now the dust has settled in dense areas like many other Euro cities, and tailing off there due to saturation with some radiation through more remote areas with a time lag.
This is a completely irrational take. The vast bulk of deaths in Spain, greater than 90%, were over by May 5th. Deaths have a longer lag than detectable antibodies do. So deaths before the test date form a reliable lower bound on infections captured. Ergo, the current number is still very close to 5%. You can see in Spain how the vast bulk of deaths are before the study period:



So the antibody tests easily captured >80% of total infections up to now (today). Which means it might be 6% instead of 5% now.

Or perhaps this is clearer for you:



Green is the conservative minimum of what was captured in terms of total infections up to now when the test started. The percent captured is even higher than that of course because death lag is longer than antibody lag, and the tests ran until May 11.
Quote:
Originally Posted by despacito View Post
Can you show your work (ie. how you get from 5% to 30%)?

EDIT: here is the study (yet to read it myself):
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...483-5/fulltext
Interesting study. Some notes:

- Profession breakdowns show that the node theory is dead. Telecommuters have higher infection rates than retail workers. This also shows how it really is spread by close contact and not casual contact.

- There is zero differential in infection rates by income. That knocks out theories for why minorities have more of it - risky, irresponsible, or generally more social behavior is the answer there, not poverty or density

- Close social contact is the large bulk of spread, not casual contact, despite the hours spent together in the workplace, etc.

Last edited by ToothSayer; Yesterday at 08:27 AM.
ToothSayer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 08:02 AM   #7806
O.A.F.K.1.1
Ted Patrick
 
O.A.F.K.1.1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Deep Coma
Posts: 23,220
Re: Coronavirus

Quote:
Originally Posted by RedQueenDream View Post
All I am saying is that the Madrid area has likely gone from 10-15% antibodies as in this study 3 months ago to 25-30% now, which seems to be enough for saturation in other cities except for minor flareups (presumably with antibody resistance from other coronaviruses helping quite a bit), and that the saturated cities then likely act as a choke point for further transmission outwards which then tails off with a time lag, so rural areas probably wont get to those numbers.

As you can see it has taken 2 months to publish their findings so we won't know that for sure for a while, but this is the pattern that seems to be emerging in lots of places and my post was merely intended to squash the misinformation of the omg only 5% antibodies we are all doomed narrative.
So your work = guess.
O.A.F.K.1.1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 08:41 AM   #7807
RedQueenDream
newbie
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Posts: 18
Re: Coronavirus

Quote:
Originally Posted by ToothSayer View Post
This is a completely irrational take. The vast bulk of deaths in Spain, greater than 90%, were over by May 5th. Deaths have a longer lag than detectable antibodies do. So deaths before the test date form a reliable lower bound on infections captured. Ergo, the current number is still very close to 5%. You can see in Spain how the vast bulk of deaths are before the study period:


So the antibody tests easily captured >80% of total infections up to now (today). Which means it might be 6% instead of 5% now.
Ok so just to be clear how would you describe Madrid currently? Its listed as 11.3% positive antibody tests on that graphic so about 750k infections in 6.6million population 2 months ago. Where do you think it is now for positive antibody results and how would you characterize the rest of the population in terms of susceptibility/other forms of immunity?
RedQueenDream is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 08:58 AM   #7808
ToothSayer
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
ToothSayer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: BFI Thought Leader
Posts: 11,066
Re: Coronavirus

I would say that Madrid is right about where it was two months ago given that the infections peaked in March and were <10% of March levels by April 27th when the test started, and has been in terminal decline since thanks to have heavy lockdowns.

Given that antibody tests elsewhere have shown positive rates at 30% - 50% in some counties/towns (with a corresponding 0.3% to 0.5% death rate for a 1% IFR), and that itself only was arrested by lockdowns, I would say the "other forms of immunity" theory is pure bullshit and wishful thinking.
ToothSayer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 09:40 AM   #7809
TeflonDawg
Pooh-Bah
 
TeflonDawg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: RetiredExtremelyDangerous
Posts: 5,211
Re: Coronavirus

Quote:
Originally Posted by revots33 View Post
Have there been any conclusive studies of indoor vs outdoor transmission? I know outdoors is generally thought to be safer, but has it been quantified?

Every time the news media wants to show people acting like morons and ignoring the virus on TV, they show huge crowds outdoors. At a lake, pool, beach, etc. But outdoors is safer so are they really acting like morons? I thought I read one news item where they only identified two cases of outdoor transmission in China out of over a thousand confirmed cases.
Outdoors is safer, but if you are in a crowded area where everyone is having a conversation in front of each other's faces, you're all basically breathing on each other. It's just a lot easier to do that indoors than outdoors because air has nowhere to go indoors

That's the point of distancing/masks, so you effectively don't breathe on each other. It also makes the viral load you're exposed to lower in volume. Pretty sure basically nothing is conclusive yet, but it is believed that the larger the load, the sicker you get and vice versa

The issue is in the US nobody wants to come to a consensus to do anything. We know some of the things that works and doesn't, but half the country is actively fighting the other half, and nothing works if there is no consensus in any specific locale

NYC has gotten deaths down to the single digits from a high of 799 in a day. That would be an example of a consensus doing what's necessary to lock down. Pretty much nowhere else did the same. AND everywhere else relaxed restrictions. We will have more deaths but not like NYC because 1) younger people getting sick from going out socially and others going back to work and 2) nobody is behaving like NYC did when they got hammered since we know things now that we didn't know back then and are following many behaviors that reduce the rate of transmission, even if it's going above 1 anyway

My guess was that deaths will rise everywhere, but not NYC level. We'll just keep opening up and shutting down trying to manufacture a flowing economy for both political reasons and because people have ****ing bills to pay
TeflonDawg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 11:49 AM   #7810
tgiggity
Pooh-Bah
 
tgiggity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Rosarito
Posts: 4,504
Re: Coronavirus

Quote:
- There is zero differential in infection rates by income. That knocks out theories for why minorities have more of it - risky, irresponsible, or generally more social behavior is the answer there, not poverty or density
More casual racism from the most brilliant genius itt
tgiggity is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 12:05 PM   #7811
chezlaw
Limey Bastard
 
chezlaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: London
Posts: 38,695
Re: Coronavirus

Bolsonaro has tested positive

Dunno if that has any Brazil related market implications
chezlaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 01:05 PM   #7812
juan valdez
Pooh-Bah
 
juan valdez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 5,344
Re: Coronavirus

Quote:
Originally Posted by ToothSayer View Post

Interesting study. Some notes:

- Profession breakdowns show that the node theory is dead. Telecommuters have higher infection rates than retail workers. This also shows how it really is spread by close contact and not casual contact.

- There is zero differential in infection rates by income. That knocks out theories for why minorities have more of it - risky, irresponsible, or generally more social behavior is the answer there, not poverty or density

- Close social contact is the large bulk of spread, not casual contact, despite the hours spent together in the workplace, etc.
My theory is vitamin D deficiency is a large risk factor. The elderly, people who don't go outside, and people with dark skin are especially at risk of serious D deficiency

It's not exactly my theory but its a theory that makes sense to me
juan valdez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 01:47 PM   #7813
rafiki
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
rafiki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 37,114
Re: Coronavirus

Mandatory masks here now. People are pissed because there's almost no covid, and the decision was taken so many months after the peak. Also originally we were told masks wouldn't work.

I'll be curious to see how easily everyone comes on side for this now.
rafiki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 01:49 PM   #7814
chezlaw
Limey Bastard
 
chezlaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: London
Posts: 38,695
Re: Coronavirus

Not proof you're wrong but it's not looking promising

Quote:
A rapid review of evidence for claims that the so-called sunshine vitamin could reduce the risk of coronavirus was launched amid concerns about the disproportionate number of black, Asian and minority ethnic people contracting and dying from the disease. Higher levels of melanin in the skin lead to less absorption of vitamin D from sunlight.

However, on Monday, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (Nice) said that, having examined five studies, it had not found evidence to support any benefit from vitamin D with respect to Covid-19.

“While there are health benefits associated with vitamin D, our rapid evidence summary did not identify sufficient evidence to support the use of vitamin D supplements for the treatment or prevention of Covid-19,” said Paul Chrisp, the director of the centre for guidelines at Nice. “We know that the research on this subject is ongoing, and Nice is continuing to monitor new published evidence.”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...us-say-experts

I'm taking Vit D supplements anyway because I'm getting almost no sun and it seems pretty harmless (also to appease my mother)
chezlaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 02:10 PM   #7815
fozzy71
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
fozzy71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: 8 Mile + 2.5
Posts: 37,401
Re: Coronavirus

Quote:
Originally Posted by chezlaw View Post
...

I'm taking Vit D supplements anyway because I'm getting almost no sun and it seems pretty harmless

ditto, plus zinc (and a few other electrolyte sup's for non-covid reasons)
fozzy71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 02:43 PM   #7816
juan valdez
Pooh-Bah
 
juan valdez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 5,344
Re: Coronavirus

Quote:
Originally Posted by chezlaw View Post
Not proof you're wrong but it's not looking promising


https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...us-say-experts

I'm taking Vit D supplements anyway because I'm getting almost no sun and it seems pretty harmless (also to appease my mother)
There's certainly nothing conclusive but being obese (fat soluble), elderly, or having darker skin are all serious factors contributing to vitamin D deficiency.

Also research shows that people that are deficient in vitamin D die from respiratory infections much more frequently. The criticism of that is those people may also have other contributing factors. They've also taken a look at a sub group with a genetic condition that creates D deficiency which is a somewhat tidier control group and that sub group also dies from respiratory infection at a much higher rate.

Its far from conclusive but when we are looking at large population groups it looks like a serious contributing factor. When doctors talk about it not being a preventive measure or treatment I think they're both speculating and speaking in terms of how it relates to other factors such as exposure, mask wearing, distancing, treating infected people etc. That's not the same thing as the theory that a vitamin D deficient population is going to do much worse than a sufficient one
juan valdez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 04:32 PM   #7817
chytry
Pooh-Bah
 
chytry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 3,841
Re: Coronavirus

Quote:
Originally Posted by juan valdez View Post
My theory is vitamin D deficiency is a large risk factor. The elderly, people who don't go outside, and people with dark skin are especially at risk of serious D deficiency

It's not exactly my theory but its a theory that makes sense to me
https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations
chytry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 05:06 PM   #7818
chezlaw
Limey Bastard
 
chezlaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: London
Posts: 38,695
Re: Coronavirus

Vitamin deficiencies are bad by definition so well worth addressing.

It all becomes a lot more dubious when people push any idea that an excess of a vitamin helps. Then absent scientific evidence it rapidly becomes nonsense.
chezlaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 05:50 PM   #7819
chytry
Pooh-Bah
 
chytry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 3,841
Re: Coronavirus

Quote:
Originally Posted by chezlaw View Post
Vitamin deficiencies are bad by definition so well worth addressing.

It all becomes a lot more dubious when people push any idea that an excess of a vitamin helps. Then absent scientific evidence it rapidly becomes nonsense.
Sodium overconsumption is also bad by definition so why not blame that instead.
The vitamin looking for a magic pill mania continues.
chytry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 06:22 PM   #7820
fozzy71
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
fozzy71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: 8 Mile + 2.5
Posts: 37,401
Re: Coronavirus

Quote:
Originally Posted by chytry View Post
Sodium overconsumption is also bad by definition so why not blame that instead.
The vitamin looking for a magic pill mania continues.

lol, love it. our nutrition science for the past 50+ years is garbage that was bought and paid for by people that want you to buy their garbage in a box/wrapper. in case no one else gets it, sodium is good for you.
fozzy71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 06:32 PM   #7821
Kelhus100
old hand
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 1,377
Re: Coronavirus

Quote:
Originally Posted by ToothSayer View Post
I would say that Madrid is right about where it was two months ago given that the infections peaked in March and were <10% of March levels by April 27th when the test started, and has been in terminal decline since thanks to have heavy lockdowns.

Given that antibody tests elsewhere have shown positive rates at 30% - 50% in some counties/towns (with a corresponding 0.3% to 0.5% death rate for a 1% IFR), and that itself only was arrested by lockdowns, I would say the "other forms of immunity" theory is pure bullshit and wishful thinking.
I am not saying your intuitions are wrong, but I don't see how there is conclusive evidence one way or another the highlighted is true.

I have not seen any strong data one way or another whether there is some percentage of individuals who are PCR and antibody negative with partial/full immunity. If there was any, I would love to see it.

I have seen in vitro data indicating some Covid seronegative patients have T cells that react to Covid antigens (providing proof of principle immunity without being infected is possible), but the leap from this to having immunity in the real world is a big one.
Kelhus100 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 08:59 PM   #7822
ToothSayer
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
ToothSayer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: BFI Thought Leader
Posts: 11,066
Re: Coronavirus

The highlighted is true because every place goes completely vertical until the lockdown date slows infections. Here's NY for example:



Lockdown date was March 22nd, yet cases soar higher until the time the lockdown starts to bite then rapidly decline from the lockdown (5 to 14 day lag from infection to hospitalization).

Everywhere looks like this. There's nowhere that shows of getting anywhere near a low R pre lockdown. Therefore, spread rates were still rapid which means the proportion of people immune is far below herd immunity even with 30% to 50% infected.

Last edited by ToothSayer; Yesterday at 09:04 PM.
ToothSayer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 09:08 PM   #7823
TooCuriousso1
Golden 2017
 
TooCuriousso1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: @TCfromUB
Posts: 6,254
Re: Coronavirus

re: Vit D

FYI,



The risks and benefits of sun exposure 2016



Quote:
White people with Type II skinsh at 40 degrees latitude can obtain their annual requirements of vitamin D by spending about 15 minutes in the sun with face, arms and legs exposed (half that time if in a bathing suit) 2 to 3 times a week between 11 a.m. and 3 p.m. during the months of May through October
TooCuriousso1 is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply
      

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:16 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2008-2017, Two Plus Two Interactive
 
 
Poker Players - Streaming Live Online