TWIV podcast discuses small German study on true Covid19 infection rates

[antares4141]

Small German study puts it at around 15%. Based on serology results as opposed to PCR tests.

But that is obviously changing and probably changed somewhat since the study was done.

Heard this on TWIV 600th episode podcast. 60 minutes in. Which is the latest episode so data is relatively recent.

Highly recommend the podcast for anyone who can't get enough information on Covid19.

 

[andyguitar]

This study has been reported in some uk newspapers. It's interesting.

 

[pattismith]

I understood that the study was conducted in a German area that was seriously hit by the pandemic. In other area, the proportion of seropositive people is expected under 10% or even under 5%, which would mean we are still just at the beginning...

However, I would like to read the study if anyone can find it.
I would like to read the Vo study as well, because I can't find anything else apart some interviews.

 

[percyval577]

However, I would like to read the study if anyone can find it.

The study is still not finished, the results are only from the half of the households.

So it´s not already possible to really judge at the study and its results.

Yesterday I listened to the discussion. The upper estimated percentage was 20%, which still may mean that we are at the beginning, given that they looked at a high hit area. They said though that in a tendency the numbers of non-high hit areas may be underestimated, and the numbers of high hit areas may be overestimated, letting some hope to slightly have past the beginning.

Another thing they occasionally pointed out in the discussion was that initial viral loads may determine the severity of the potentially resulting illness. They said that they think that this is likely, though there wouldn´t be any specific investigations already.


Altogether they behaved carefully enough in what they are saying.

The ministerpresident of the federal sub-state the study was conducted in, though, raised (and raises) his voice for a beginning ending of the restrictions. There is to date no consensus between the different presidents, and the chancellor as well. A deciding discussion will take place this week.

 

[pattismith]

Another thing they occasionally pointed out in the discussion was that initial viral loads may determine the severity of the potentially resulting illness. They said that they think that this is likely, though there wouldn´t be any specific investigations already.

Pr Raoult team in Marseille (only place where there is large testing in France) thinks the same (it's just a feeling for now, but it happened already with other virus). They wrote it in a published paper.

This is very important because it would mean that masks for everybody is a key to reduce exposition and massive spreading of high loads of the virus, allowing softer infections, and less severe.

I hope we will have more evidences on this

 

[antares4141]

There is this website that makes projections:
http://covid19.healthdata.org/united-states-of-america
It originally projected 90k deaths. That's down to 61.5k. For the US.

You can switch countries if you go to the top and select the desired one from the dropdown list.

TWIV podcast did say that there are going to be a lot more serology test's going forward. I think one of the guest's on the podcast said that the German data was 20 times that of the deaths being collated through pcr and clinical diagnosis.

This doesn't give any data but discusses the significance of serology tests.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/202...es-could-show-true-scale-coronavirus-pandemic

Somewhere in my reading I did see that they say the viral load you receive probably plays an important role in how sick you become. I think they said this in the below link. So by taking social distancing measures you may still get the virus but the outcome could be far less significant.

This is a great article but they try to get you to subscribe. It's about the german study which put the infected and recovered at 14%. Data was drawn from a hard hit town so it might not be representative of the country as a whole. Very good article though.

If you copy all to your clipboard before the popup you might be able paste it to a word processor and read it that way.
https://www.technologyreview.com/20...ow-immune-to-covid-19-in-one-town-in-germany/


Here's another one:
https://www.ft.com/content/fe211ec7-0ed4-4d36-9d83-14b639efb3ad

 

[Hufsamor]

put the infected and recovered at 14%.

I seem to be the only one who don't understand
What 14%?
Does it mean that only 14% of the people in a certain area (in this case a town that was hard hit by the virus) have had the virus?....or 14% of the inhabitants are now immune? Or...

 

[pattismith]

Thank you so much @antares4141

this is a Google translation:

"Preliminary results and conclusions of the COVID-19 case cluster study (Gangelt municipality)"

Background: The municipality of Gangelt is one of the most affected places in Germany by COVID19 in Germany. The infection is believed to be due to a carnival session on February 15, 2020, as several people tested positive for SARSCoV2 after this session. The carnival session and the outbreak of the session are currently being examined in more detail. A representative sample was drawn from the community of Gangelt (12,529 inhabitants) in the Heinsberg district. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends a protocol in which 100 to 300 households are sampled depending on the expected prevalence. This sample was coordinated with its representativeness with Prof. Manfred Güllner (Forsa).

Aim: The aim of the study is to determine the level of the SARS-CoV2 infections (percentage of all infected) that have been undergoing and are still occurring in the Gangelt community. In addition, the status of the current SARS-CoV2 immunity is to be determined

Procedure: A form letter was sent to approximately 600 households. A total of around 1000 residents from around 400 households took part in the study. Questionnaires were collected, throat swabs were taken and blood was tested for the presence of antibodies (IgG, IgA). The interim results and conclusions of approx. 500 people are included in this first evaluation.

Preliminary result:

An existing immunity of approx. 14% (anti-SARS-CoV2 IgG positive, specificity of the method>, 99%) was determined.

About 2% of the people had a current SARS-CoV-2 infection determined using the PCR method.

The overall infection rate (current infection or already gone through) was approximately 15%.

The mortality rate (case fatality rate) based on the total number of infected people in the community of Gangelt is approx. 0.37% with the preliminary data from this study.

The lethality currently calculated by the Johns-Hopkins University in Germany is 1.98% and is 5 times higher.

The mortality rate based on the total population in Gangelt is currently 0.06%.

 

[roller]

@Hufsamor

heinsberg, germany

- tested were 1,000 people from 400 households
- 14 % of the tested had antibodies and are considered immune (immunologist streeck)

immunologist topgun drosten questioned if the antibodies were true covid or could have been contamined with other flu virus antibodies.
in this case, not all 14 % had developed covid resistance.

https://www.fr.de/politik/corona-st...nisse-aussagekraft-angezweifelt-13648027.html

according to the posting from pattismith it was meantime perhaps clarified that the antibodies found were indeed covid-antibodies. its preliminary results, still.

 

[pattismith]

some more explanations in the publication:

"Preliminary conclusion:

The 5-fold higher lethality calculated by Johns-Hopkins University compared to this study in Gangelt is explained by the different reference size of the infected. In Gangelt, this study includes all infected people in the sample, including those with asymptomatic and mild courses. The proportion of the population that has already developed immunity to SARS-CoV-2 is about 15%.

This means that 15% of the population in Gangelt can no longer become infected with SARS-CoV-2, and the process has already begun until herd immunity is reached. This 15 percent share of the population reduces the speed (net reproduction number R in epidemiological models) corresponding to a further spread of SARS-CoV-2."

"By adhering to stringent hygiene measures, it can be expected that the virus concentration in the event of an infection in a person can be reduced to such an extent that the severity of the disease is reduced, while at the same time developing immunity.

These favorable conditions do not exist in the event of an unusual outbreak event (superspreading event, e.g. carnival session, apres ski bar Ischgl). With hygienic measures, favorable effects with regard to all-cause mortality can also be expected."


We therefore strongly recommend implementing the proposed four-phase strategy of the German Society for Hospital Hygiene (DGKH). This provides the following model:

Phase 1: Social quarantine with the aim of containing and slowing down the pandemic and avoiding an overload of the critical care structures, especially the health care system

Phase 2: Beginning withdrawal of the quarantine while ensuring hygienic framework conditions and behavior.

Phase 3: Abolition of the quarantine while maintaining the hygienic framework

Phase 4: State of public life as before the COVID-19 pandemic (status quo ante).

 

[antares4141]

I seem to be the only one who don't understand
What 14%?
Does it mean that only 14% of the people in a certain area (in this case a town that was hard hit by the virus) have had the virus?....or 14% of the inhabitants are now immune? Or...

Serological test's mean the subject shows antibodies to covid19. So they could either have an ongoing infection or they had it, recovered and have antibodies to it so they (probably) can't be reinfected.

This is different from the past where they were just doing PCR tests. Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is a method used widely in molecular biology to make millions to billions of copies of a specific DNA sample rapidly, allowing scientists to take a very small sample of DNA and amplify it to a large enough amount to study in detail.

PCR should if I understand properly not come back positive on somebody who got the infection and recovred. You would have to have an ongoing infection for it to come back positive. Hence the much lower positives.

That can be misleading if you are interested in what percentage of the population has already been infected. Which is important to know because from that data we can tell how well social distancing is working, how close we are to heard immunity, and what effects social distancing has on the severity of those that are infected.

Conversely PCR is very important tool also. Cause if we ever get the lid back down on this "pandora's box" we can keep it that way by doing PCR on suspected cases and rapidly quarantining them so they don't spread it to others.

At least until we develop a vaccine. Than nobody will be any more concerned with covid19 than we are with any of the other preventable diseases like measles and chickenpox.

That day as far as I am concerned can't come soon enough. I'll be right there to get my shot if I don't get infected first that is.

 

[pattismith]

we still miss some important datas in this study:
how many of the seropositive had symptoms, and how many hadn't?

 

[Hufsamor]

@antares4141 @roller @pattismith
Thanks a lot

 

[antares4141]

If you scroll down to Germany at this website:
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries

You will see at the time of this post 1528 cases per 1 million. What that means is the current reported cases are less than 2 tenths of 1 percent or (.001528) of the total population. If I did my math right anyways. Which isn't my strong suit.

Compare that .001528 percent pcr tests to the 14.00% serology tests and there almost certainly has to be a large percentage of asymptomatic positives. For every positive PCR or clinically diagnosed covid19 patient you have 91.6 sick and recovered or asymptomatic and spreading the disease.

Again if I didn't interpret their data incorrectly and if my math is correct which isn't very likely.

Or another way to put it is 14% of 1 million is 140,000 as opposed to the current reported cases of 1528
1528*91.6=139,964
So maybe my math is right?