|
|
|
|
|
|
by mlyle
2232 days ago
|
|
|
> if the population prevalence is 1% But the population prevalence is much more than 1%: 80k deaths at a 1% infection fatality rate (and I believe this is high, but I'm being conservative) implies 8,000,000 infections so far. This is more like 2.5%. So far. 95% CI for specificity is 99.5%, so you can be reasonably confident that you're doing better than 85%. It may not be a perfect intervention, but you could really reduce risk. If there's an 85% chance that someone is immune, they do not share a household with a vulnerable person, and they are not in a high risk group themselves-- you've reduced the risk of death to basically nothing. I disagree with it for other reasons (it incents people to go get sick to be free/be able to work/etc). |
|
|
On an individual basis yes, but doign large scale scientifically/statistically relevant antibody tests to see just how many people have actually had covid-19, would be very beneficial.