So, poly-ticks aside...

For_The_U

All ACC
Joined
Feb 21, 2018
Messages
5,517
I'm not really sure what to take from that. They tested 1,118 people and 7.3% of them had antibodies. I'm not sure that's a large enough sample size to try and forecast it over the entire nation. They said they're doing that amount daily at random to get this number though. I like the idea of random testing and I'm glad they're taking daily samples.

What does this tell us about their no general lockdown approach though? I don't know; again, I don't think it tells us much. One logical conclusion that immediately jumped out at me though is, the fear of them not locking down was borne in the idea it would spread everywhere as a result, right? If that proved true, then wouldn't we expect these antibody percentages to be massively higher? Sure, on one hand (assuming this sample is reflective of the entire populous), it tells us they aren't close to achieving herd immunity right now. But on the other hand (assuming the same), it tells us not locking down Stockholm did not cause COVID to spread like wildfire in Stockholm.

Am I missing something else on this?
 
Last edited:

g8rh8rMD

Not a Dr.
Joined
May 21, 2016
Messages
4,912
What do guys make of this? Just thoughts, no food fights please.

Interesting. Not sure what to make of it, except that we need more studies. Initial antibody studies in the US have seemed to indicate much higher percentages of people with the antibodies, even though Sweden had fewer restrictions and we had more. That seems counter-intuitive. None of the studies (as I understand it) have been conducted with truly representative or large enough sample sizes to really be meaningful, though, so I'm not sure how much we can take from them.

The anecdotal evidence that the antibodies don't last is certainly concerning, but it seems far too early to draw any real conclusions.
 

TheEye

Cane Grad!
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
4,444
I'm not really sure what to take from that. They tested 1,118 people and 7.3% of them had antibodies. I'm not sure that's a large enough sample size to try and forecast it over the entire nation. They said they're doing that amount daily at random to get this number though. I like the idea of random testing and I'm glad they're taking daily samples.

What does this tell us about their no general lockdown approach though? I don't know; again, I don't think it tells us much. One logical conclusion that immediately jumped out at me though is, the fear of them not locking down was borne in the idea it would spread everywhere as a result, right? If that proved true, then wouldn't we expect these antibody percentages to be massively higher? Sure, one on hand (assuming this sample is reflective of the entire populous), it tells us they aren't close to achieving herd immunity right now. But on the other hand (assuming the same), it tells us not locking down Stockholm did not cause COVID to spread like wildfire in Stockholm.

Am I missing something else on this?
I'd like to see what the change in % is after a second test. If the numbers go up, can we map a rate of increase? Also, a follow up test in NYC would also give a clue as to how much the antibody numbers are changing.
 

ClancyNoseBest

Sorry for any typos - no thumbs...
Joined
Aug 18, 2018
Messages
292
A couple factors make their strategy less risky: Sweden has low population density with about 2.4M of 10M in Stockholm area. Stockholm metro area population density is ~ 10K per square mile compared to ~26k in New York city. the rest of Sweden is ~63 people per square mile. Stockholm also has one of the highest GDP per person in the world. Agree it will be interesting to see the final impact.
 

RemainMack

Sophomore
Joined
Oct 14, 2018
Messages
1,489
Flawed article in many ways. Still don’t know about reinfection rates. What are the demographics of that sample? Is it actually representative of the population?

‘The study carried out by Sweden's Public Health Agency aims to determine the potential herd immunity in the population, based on 1,118 tests carried out in one week. It aims to carry out the same number of tests every seven days over an eight-week period. Results from other regions would be released later, a Public Health Authority spokesperson said.’

The above use of tenses confused me. Did they just do 1118 to get that number and are going to now do 1118 a week over an 8 week period?

Actually if I’m reading right that would be 1118/week for 8 weeks. Assuming those are unique individuals that would mean 1118*8=8944 unique tests out of 10000000=.089 percent including other regions of Sweden.
 

JD08

Non-attorney spokesperson
Joined
Dec 19, 2014
Messages
9,055
There's an antibody study going on in FL where health care workers get tested. I don't know when the results will be available, but I'm sure it will be a few weeks.
 

For_The_U

All ACC
Joined
Feb 21, 2018
Messages
5,517
Interesting. Not sure what to make of it, except that we need more studies. Initial antibody studies in the US have seemed to indicate much higher percentages of people with the antibodies, even though Sweden had fewer restrictions and we had more. That seems counter-intuitive. None of the studies (as I understand it) have been conducted with truly representative or large enough sample sizes to really be meaningful, though, so I'm not sure how much we can take from them.

The anecdotal evidence that the antibodies don't last is certainly concerning, but it seems far too early to draw any real conclusions.
Very well said, man. That's exactly where my head went with it too.
 

Beatles_1

Recruit
Joined
Jan 31, 2014
Messages
79
Takes some time after exposure to develop antibodies so if 7 percent had them at the end of April that reflects infections in early April. Depending on their RO they could have substantially more infected by now.
 

JD08

Non-attorney spokesperson
Joined
Dec 19, 2014
Messages
9,055
If Covid is so easily spread, shouldn't a lot more Swedes have it? Maybe the RO estimates have been too high.
I read somewhere that the exponential growth rate never came to pass regardless of the lockdown. It would be something if it just sort of burned out on its own.
 

tcgrad1014

All-ACC
Joined
Nov 5, 2011
Messages
12,001

crossover22[]_[]

[]_[] already know!
Joined
Jan 16, 2012
Messages
11,939
Unless they test the entire population those numbers dont really mean anything to me.

Should we expect any nation to have herd immunity in this amount of time?
 

JD08

Non-attorney spokesperson
Joined
Dec 19, 2014
Messages
9,055

Unsider

Senior
Joined
Jan 19, 2014
Messages
3,200
Don’t know if you’re agreeing with the professor or not. Respectfully though, In fact based science, statistical probabilities are based on just that, facts. Purely statistical projections without scientific basis are like a hovercraft without a steering mechanism. China is already seeing a resurgence, as are other places. Hence the professor looks purely a book-warmer. But he is smart enough I guess, to hope and pray it isn’t resurgent. I hope I did not misread your point.
 

Unsider

Senior
Joined
Jan 19, 2014
Messages
3,200
I'm not really sure what to take from that. They tested 1,118 people and 7.3% of them had antibodies. I'm not sure that's a large enough sample size to try and forecast it over the entire nation. They said they're doing that amount daily at random to get this number though. I like the idea of random testing and I'm glad they're taking daily samples.

What does this tell us about their no general lockdown approach though? I don't know; again, I don't think it tells us much. One logical conclusion that immediately jumped out at me though is, the fear of them not locking down was borne in the idea it would spread everywhere as a result, right? If that proved true, then wouldn't we expect these antibody percentages to be massively higher? Sure, one on hand (assuming this sample is reflective of the entire populous), it tells us they aren't close to achieving herd immunity right now. But on the other hand (assuming the same), it tells us not locking down Stockholm did not cause COVID to spread like wildfire in Stockholm.

Am I missing something else on this?
Thanks for a thoughtful post. No you’re not. That is why I found it interesting enough to post it here.
 

Unsider

Senior
Joined
Jan 19, 2014
Messages
3,200
Unless they test the entire population those numbers dont really mean anything to me.

Should we expect any nation to have herd immunity in this amount of time?
Entire population is unrealistic, logistically in such a short time. Herd immunity can only be read in a “new cases over time“ graph. I believe this is what they’re attempting.
 

tcgrad1014

All-ACC
Joined
Nov 5, 2011
Messages
12,001
Don’t know if you’re agreeing with the professor or not. Respectfully though, In fact based science, statistical probabilities are based on just that, facts. Purely statistical projections without scientific basis are like a hovercraft without a steering mechanism. China is already seeing a resurgence, as are other places. Hence the professor looks purely a book-warmer. But he is smart enough I guess, to hope and pray it isn’t resurgent. I hope I did not misread your point.
I'm not agreeing or disagreeing. I posted the link because it seemed relevant to the post of @JD08.
 
Top