Okay solid. My take on NYC being the “best” data was based on the relatively high prevalence, which would theoretically reduce the amount of influence of false positive antibody test results. The Santa Clara study findings seemed particularly likely to be skewed by these.
Distraction-free reading. No ads.
Organize your knowledge with lists and highlights.
Tell your story. Find your audience.
Read member-only stories
Support writers you read most
Earn money for your writing
Listen to audio narrations
Read offline with the Medium app
Non-profit founder, musician, coach, X-C skier/CrossFitter, artist, concerned citizen, mammal (not necessarily in that order). See https://weems.works for more.
Totally agreed.Santa Clara detected something like 1.2% unweighted, but up to 0.8% could have been false positives.So the real infections could have been as low as 0.4% if they had no false negatives and maximum false positives. Unlikely, but…
--
