Quote:
Originally Posted by Shuffle
There are three states on the East Coast, three states on the West Coast, and three states in the middlof the country. The virus was in all 50 states at the time. Nobody was testing for it because nobody knew it existed.
Again, your insane theories aside, the point is that the choice of the states was not random and you cannot extrapolate from the data to infer anything at the national level. You're just engaged in circular reasoning where you're assuming that COVID-19 was widespread or whatever, so any combination of states must have been representative enough. That's not how anything works.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shuffle
When the data doesn't agree with your thesis, just blame lab error. Cool story bro.
No, I'm literally saying the same thing that particular study's authors are saying. You're just misunderstanding the study entirely and you also don't seem to know how these things work. It's very obvious to everyone that you have no idea how anything works and just accept uncritically what happens to appeal to your conspiratorial thinking at the moment and reject anything that goes against it. From the actual study:
Quote:
In the present study, 84 of 90 (>93%) reactive sera had neutralizing activity against SARS-CoV-2 virus, 39 (44.3%) had both IgG and IgM SARS-CoV-2 S protein–specific antibodies, 2 (2.2%) sera had surrogate neutralization activities, and 1 of 90 (1.1%) had SARS-CoV-2 S1-specific Ig. Collectively, these data suggest that at least some of the reactive blood donor sera could be due to prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. One serum sample, collected on 10 January 2020 in Connecticut, demonstrated a neutralization titer of 320, a signal-to-threshold ratio of 6.75, and 70% inhibition activity by surrogate neutralization activity, but was Ortho S1 nonreactive. These data indicate that this donation was likely from an individual with a past or active SARS-CoV-2 infection.
Quote:
In addition to potential cross-reactivity with human common coronavirus infection other than SARS-CoV-2, the findings in this report are subject to the following limitations. First, none of the sera can be considered “true positives.” A true positive would only be collected from an individual with a positive molecular diagnostic test or paired acute–convalescent sera with rising titers [26, 27]. Second, the donations included in this report may not be representative of all blood donors or donations in these states and the findings may not be generalizable to all blood donors during the donation dates reported here. Therefore, population-based seroprevalence estimates or inference on magnitude of infections on a national or state level cannot be made.
I know you're struggling with some issues, to put it mildly, but engaging in this type of nonsensical thinking and combining with motivated reasoning cannot possibly be helping. You lack the relevant background knowledge to discuss any of this, you don't have the persistence or intellectual humility to earnestly acquire the relevant knowledge and even if you overcome all of this to magically learn everything you need, you certainly lack the emotional stability to fairly evaluate the evidence.