Article

2020-05-01 Science & Technology

Coronavirus antibody test with 99% success rate approved for use in Europe

[JPost] - Abbott's coronavirus antibody test, which boasts an accuracy rate of 99%, has received approval for use across Europe, The Independent reported.

Abbott's antibody test had already received Emergency Use Authorization from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) at the end of April, the company announced over social media.

That's False positives + False negatives = 0.01. Wow!
Finally, we'll have the facts about asymptomatic & herd immunity - instead of the bull numbers we been getting from NY & Kalifornia.
Finally, we'll know who is safe and can go back to work and who's just fantasizing.
An additional consequence - this (by comparison with Chinese antibody tests) shows that the West is light years ahead of China when it comes to research and innovation. So they better pull their horns in - because the same goes for military tech.

Posted by g(r)omgoru 2020-05-01 03:57|| || Front Page|| [11136 views ] Top

#1 Cuban elections had 99%+ outcomes too.

Posted by M. Murcek 2020-05-01 05:31|| 2020-05-01 05:31|| Front Page Top

#2 Mister relevance.

Posted by g(r)omgoru 2020-05-01 05:43|| 2020-05-01 05:43|| Front Page Top

#3 Wasn't there a news post that the South Koreans found the reinfection numbers were false positives?

Posted by Procopius2k 2020-05-01 07:27|| 2020-05-01 07:27|| Front Page Top

#4 Another antibody test, P2k.

Posted by g(r)omgoru 2020-05-01 07:35|| 2020-05-01 07:35|| Front Page Top

#5 MM, IIRC, that's the same as California Mail In Ballots, true?

Posted by AlanC 2020-05-01 08:19|| 2020-05-01 08:19|| Front Page Top

#6 No, Cali mail in ballots are 110% certified.

Posted by M. Murcek 2020-05-01 08:37|| 2020-05-01 08:37|| Front Page Top

#7 So 1:100 tests have bogus results?
In 100,000 tested there will be 1000 infectors?

Posted by Skidmark 2020-05-01 14:24|| 2020-05-01 14:24|| Front Page Top

#8 #7 Nope.
(a) 0.01 is both False positive (F+) and False negative (F-), fractions, and it's unbelievably good. Most medical tests have F+, F- = 0.1 (10%).
(b) 1% F+ are not infective - they are not immune - there is a difference.
Finally, what's most useful is estimating fraction of immune in the population, Skid (the famous "herd immunity").
Denote True positive (T+).
And say, fraction 0 < x < 1 are immune. Then you run a test on a representative sample and get
(O+) = positive/total = (T+)x + (F+)(1-x) ==>
x = (O+ - F+)/(T+ - F+).
The results Lex always waves around are O+ and they mean zilch if F+ is large.

Posted by g(r)omgoru 2020-05-01 14:51|| 2020-05-01 14:51|| Front Page Top

#9 p.s. Suppose you use the test to determine who can go to work. So, suppose one F+ sneaks through. And he goes to work. Let us be generous and assume he's asymptomatic carrier (infectious). Whom is he going to infect? The chances of two F+ at the same place are (0.01)^2 = 0.0001*number of workers. And, even then, the other F+ may not be susceptible but rather another asymptomatic.

Posted by g(r)omgoru 2020-05-01 14:59|| 2020-05-01 14:59|| Front Page Top

15:04 NN2N1
15:03 NN2N1
14:55 NN2N1
14:09 Grom the Affective
14:04 Super Hose
14:02 Super Hose
13:37 Procopius2k
13:35 Grom the Affective
13:34 Procopius2k
13:27 Grom the Affective
13:21 NN2N1
13:18 Grom the Affective
12:50 Remoteman
12:45 Secret Master
12:24 Matt
12:07 Abu Uluque
12:03 Grom the Affective
11:59 Grom the Affective
11:35 Super Hose
11:33 Super Hose
11:29 Besoeker
11:28 Besoeker
11:28 Super Hose
11:27 Besoeker