Post by account_disabled on Mar 13, 2024 5:01:32 GMT -5
This cardiologist directs the large public research organization that carries out, among others, the SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence study in Spain. She considers that, when scientific hypotheses are transferred to the population, they run the risk of becoming “erroneous and dangerous simplifications.” In addition, she assures that coronavirus mutations have played a minor role when compared to social and health factors. Their seroprevalence study estimated that 5.2% of Spaniards had had the disease at the beginning of May, although it showed large differences between regions.
Do we have any idea how much that percentage has changed since then? We won't have a solid estimate until the next round, whose testing will begin on November 16. Until then we only know that the number of confirmed cases has increased, the rest is speculation. It must be taken into account that the difference between estimated and AOL Email List confirmed cases was very high then. The study showed that about 2.3 million people were infected, but we only detected 10% of that number, about 230,000. That's why the [observed] lethality was not real. In this second wave, the diagnosis has increased greatly. Not only moderate and severe cases are identified, but also mild and even asymptomatic cases. Are we detecting 100%? Surely not, the Ministry of Health estimates between 40 and.
The fourth round of the seroprevalence study will tell us what percentage is now escaping. Do these studies underestimate the percentage of the immunized population, by not taking into account other factors such as cellular immunity? Not recognizing the role of cellular immunity is a mistake, but it must be put in its proper measure. This, including possible cross-reactivity with other viruses, may modulate the severity of the disease, but may not prevent infection. Are we detecting 100%? Surely not, the Ministry of Health estimates between 40 and 60%. The fourth round of the seroprevalence study will tell us what percentage is now escaping Furthermore, it is not possible to have a reliable measure of cellular immunity at the population level.
Do we have any idea how much that percentage has changed since then? We won't have a solid estimate until the next round, whose testing will begin on November 16. Until then we only know that the number of confirmed cases has increased, the rest is speculation. It must be taken into account that the difference between estimated and AOL Email List confirmed cases was very high then. The study showed that about 2.3 million people were infected, but we only detected 10% of that number, about 230,000. That's why the [observed] lethality was not real. In this second wave, the diagnosis has increased greatly. Not only moderate and severe cases are identified, but also mild and even asymptomatic cases. Are we detecting 100%? Surely not, the Ministry of Health estimates between 40 and.
The fourth round of the seroprevalence study will tell us what percentage is now escaping. Do these studies underestimate the percentage of the immunized population, by not taking into account other factors such as cellular immunity? Not recognizing the role of cellular immunity is a mistake, but it must be put in its proper measure. This, including possible cross-reactivity with other viruses, may modulate the severity of the disease, but may not prevent infection. Are we detecting 100%? Surely not, the Ministry of Health estimates between 40 and 60%. The fourth round of the seroprevalence study will tell us what percentage is now escaping Furthermore, it is not possible to have a reliable measure of cellular immunity at the population level.