1/J

Wanted to address some issues in the thread below from another immunologist.

Should be a nice change-of-pace from dealing with obvious nonsense from disingenuous denialists.



2/J

Serology isn't missing many asymptomatic + pauci-symptomatic infections, once one adjusts for sensitivity based on calibration (long-term sensitivity is better for anti-spike vs. anti-nucleocapsid)



jvi.asm.org/content/95/3/e…

immunology.sciencemag.org/content/5/54/e…
3/J

You're not going to get places with >55% seroprevalence with high specificity tests, if you're missing a lot of infections.



66% - 70%: medrxiv.org/content/10.110…
74%: icddrb.org/news-and-event…

academic.oup.com/ofid/advance-a…

ins.gov.co/BibliotecaDigi…
4/J

Those high infection rates are incompatible with a low herd immunity threshold (low HIT).

As a whole, the USA has not reached HIT; its infection rate is too low for that, nor is it under baseline non-mitigated conditions.



5/J

Once one dispels the idea that serology greatly under-estimates the number of infections, it's even more clear that the USA had too few infections to reach HIT.

A 10X multiplier is too large.





6/J

So even if it was unclear what caused a decrease in reported cases/day, it's clearly not herd immunity.

Similarly, even if someone's precise cause of death is unknown, you can still rule out causes that would leave obvious signs that are not present

7/J

1) No evidence given that this wasn't due to behavior changes.
2) Other nations show a drop after behavior changes.
3) Mitigation + infections can curb cases w/o reaching HIT or sharp behavior changes



academic.oup.com/cid/article/71…

8/J

And I can't make sense of the seasonality argument.

Seasonality is largely behavior-based in response to weather. Yet the decrease in reported cases occurred while it's still cold, months earlier than the early 2020 decrease



ourworldindata.org/coronavirus-da…
9/J

Herd immunity would keep cases/day from increasing even under baseline conditions, w/o cases limited by additional public health interventions + behavior changes.

USA is not at baseline.
Example: ↑ time at home, ↓ outside



web.archive.org/web/2021020507…

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Atomsk's Sanakan

Atomsk's Sanakan Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @AtomsksSanakan

6 Feb
1/K

A list of those who so under-estimated the fatality rate of COVID-19, that they *require more people be infected than actually exist.*

(it's amazing there are enough people to include in a list like this 🤷‍♂️)

Sunetra Gupta

coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/deaths…

2/K

Re: "A list of those who so under-estimated the fatality rate of COVID-19, that they *require more people be infected than actually exist.*"

Nic Lewis

~0.12% of Sweden has now died of COVID-19:
ourworldindata.org/coronavirus-da…
covid19.who.int

judithcurry.com/2020/06/28/the… Image
3/K

Re: "A list of those who so under-estimated the fatality rate of COVID-19, that they *require more people be infected than actually exist.*"

Michael Levitt

archive.is/3IpJF

Image
Read 7 tweets
3 Feb
1/B

Some sources on this for those curious about how long antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 persist after infection.

I'll focus on longitudinal studies that test and re-test the same infected people.

2/B

Also, I'll focus on studies that did representative sampling of the general population.
So no sampling just hospital patients, blood donors, healthcare workers, etc.

St. Petersburg, Russia:

medrxiv.org/content/10.110…



eusp.org/en/news/over-1… Image
Read 8 tweets
23 Dec 20
1/X

Those behind the Great Barrington Declaration mention herd immunity as a way to address COVID-19.

So I'll discuss it. After all, noting herd immunity (in response to vaccine deniers) is 1 main reason I started on Twitter.



gbdeclaration.org Image
2/X

Suppose u want to know how many people would die from COVID-19 under *baseline conditions*.

So basically: treat COVID-19 like another typical disease, with business-as-usual and acting the same as this time last year without the pandemic.

3/X

Re: "how many people would die from COVID-19 under *baseline conditions*"

One can figure that out using:
- the number of people who would get infected
- how many of those infected people die of COVID-19

A separate thread on the latter point:
Read 43 tweets
22 Dec 20
1/

Many COVID-19 contrarians, including those behind the Great Barrington Declaration, *still* cite John Ioannidis' inaccurate estimate of SARS-CoV-2's fatality rate.

So let's go over how atrocious Ioannidis' paper is.



web.archive.org/web/2020111809… Image
2/

Background:

When a virus infects u, your body increases production of proteins known as antibodies, which are usually specific to that virus.

So measuring antibodies lets u estimate who was infected, and from that the infection fatality rate (IFR).

institutefordiseasemodeling.github.io/nCoV-public/an… Image
3/

Ioannidis uses antibody (a.k.a. seroprevalence) studies to estimate the number of people infected with the virus SARS-CoV-2. He then calculates IFR by dividing the number of COVID-19 deaths by the number of infected people.

Ioannidis does this badly:
medrxiv.org/content/10.110… Image
Read 51 tweets
8 Dec 20
1/P

Peter C Gøtzsche (@PGtzsche1) wrote the article below

He argues that COVID-19 isn't very lethal, + then draws some political conclusions.

The article is poor.

"Is the infection fatality rate for COVID-19 worse than that for influenza?"
bmj.com/content/371/bm…
2/P

Gøtzsche's basic idea is:
The proportion of SARS-CoV-2-infected people who die of the disease COVID-19 is comparable to that of flu; i.e. the infection fatality rate (IFR) for COVID-19 is not an order of magnitude larger than that of the flu.

So:
bmj.com/content/371/bm…
3/P

Gøtzsche is wrong. Study after study shows that the fatality rate for SARS-CoV-2 is about an order of magnitude larger than that of influenza; COVID-19 is way more dangerous than the flu.

So where does Gøtzsche go wrong?



link.springer.com/article/10.100…
Read 16 tweets
4 Dec 20
The USA's SeroHub is out. It purports to cover SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence studies in the USA.

It includes the quite bad, non-peer-reviewed Santa Clara study. So I thought I'd include some other USA studies SeroHub now leaves out.



covid19serohub.nih.gov
Re: "some other USA studies SeroHub now leaves out"

Baton Rouge, Louisiana
medrxiv.org/content/10.110…

Ohio
arxiv.org/abs/2011.09033
coronavirus.ohio.gov/static/dashboa…

Washoe County, Nevada
washoecounty.us/outreach/2020/…

4 Utah counties
medrxiv.org/content/10.110…
Re: "some other USA studies SeroHub now leaves out"

Maricopa County, Arizona
maricopa.gov/CivicAlerts.as…
maricopa.gov/5607/COVID-19-…

Orange County, California
medrxiv.org/content/10.110…

Riverside County, California
rivcoph.org/Portals/0/Docu…

Connecticut
amjmed.com/article/S0002-…
Read 5 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!