HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » NY Times: Actual Coronav...

Sun Jun 28, 2020, 03:31 PM

NY Times: Actual Coronavirus Infections Vastly Undercounted, C.D.C. Data Shows

The prevalence of infections is more than 10 times higher than the counted number of cases in six regions of the United States.

The number of coronavirus infections in many parts of the United States is more than 10 times higher than the reported rate, according to data released on Friday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.


“This study underscores that there are probably a lot of people infected without knowing it, likely because they have mild or asymptomatic infection,” said Dr. Fiona Havers, who led the C.D.C. study. “But those people could still spread it to others.”


The results confirm what some scientists have warned about for months: that without wider testing, scores of infected people go undetected and circulate the virus.


“Our best estimate right now is for every case reported there were actually 10 other infections,” Dr. Redfield said.


2 replies, 581 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 2 replies Author Time Post
Reply NY Times: Actual Coronavirus Infections Vastly Undercounted, C.D.C. Data Shows (Original post)
Botany Jun 2020 OP
lostnfound Jun 2020 #1
Drahthaardogs Jun 2020 #2

Response to Botany (Original post)

Mon Jun 29, 2020, 05:57 AM

1. I don't trust this. Antibody tests have many false positives.

In fact Elon Musk just tweeted today about the false positives, that that we are overstating the number of coronavirus cases,. I see people on the right side using this concept of false positives inconsistently — sometimes using it to say the disease is less lethal than previously reported, and other times to say that the case numbers have been exaggerated.

I would add that I trust science and I used to trust the CDC. But this is labeled as “commercial.lab data”, not presented in a rigorous fashion. Is it politicized?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to lostnfound (Reply #1)

Reply to this thread