Hundreds of thousands in L.A. may have been infected with coronavirus: study
Some more information about the study here: <a href="https://pressroom.usc.edu/what-a-usc-la-county-antibody-study-can-teach-us-about-covid-19/" rel="nofollow">https://pressroom.usc.edu/what-a-usc-la-county-antibody-stud...</a><p>Population is supposed to be representative of LA county. Tests are from Premier Biotech with some preliminary data on false negative/ false positive rates shown. I suspect assumptions related to the test itself, rather than population, may be a bigger factor for any inaccuracies. There's also the question of whether antibody response implies immunity for SARS-COV2<p>Another interesting aspect of the result was 6% of men showed antibodies but only 2% of women tested.<p>Also:
--2.4% of people between the ages of 18 and 34 had antibodies to the coronavirus
--5.6% of people between 35 and 54 had antibodies
--4.3% of between 55 and older had antibodies<p>Edit: The key assumption that really, really needs to be triply checked here is the specificity of the test. They're assuming 99.5%, similar to the Stanford study I believe. If it's closer to 98% then prevalence estimate confidence intervals should include 0%, I believe. Also should be noted that the same PI on the Stanford study, Jay Bhattacharya, is also involved in this. Same criticisms likely apply here - more caution needed!<p>Second edit: On further reflection, I think these studies could do serious damage based on how the results are being announced by press-release - in this case, afaik there's no pre-print. In our current environment this isn't <i>just</i> science. Policy is being enacted and people may die because of poorly framing results. Everyone involved needs to take a step back and think through this carefully. Also - did anyone figure out why a hedge fund guy was an author on the Stanford pre-print? And why that same guy then published a Wall Street Journal op-ed about the study without identifying himself as a co-author? Shady stuff.