Stanford Serology Study/Game Changer???

[billethkid]

This was buried in another thread

[blueash]

This was buried in another thread and I thought could be interesting and worthy of comment in a thread of it's own.

New Coronavirus Study is a GAME CHANGER | Steve Deace Show - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZB7szRDytZY&feature=youtu.be)

Just released yesterday. I haven't seen anything else on the subject. Further the need for more information than we get from the media or politicians to ascertain a more accurate picture of what is real or not.

I know there will be a barrage of commentary about the source...The Blaze....try to stay with the message being presented.

Certainly is/will be controversial (even if just here).

What useful information did you get from this report and how do you believe it is useful in making decisions going forward? What are the weaknesses in his study design and his choices on how to adjust the findings? Did the method by which he recruited subjects make his sample so tainted as to be useless to apply to the population at large?

Did Mr. Deace show any understanding of the significant difference in methodology in the CDC's calculation of cases of influenza in the US yearly vs. the technique in the Stanford study in his discussion [answer, his attempt to conflate death rates of COVID to flu made my brain hurt]? Mr Deace continuously referred to the Stanford study as random. He seems to want to impress on the viewer how important a random sample would be for accepting the data as meaningful. The authors never use the term random to describe their test subjects. The word random does not appear once anywhere in the study (https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.14.20062463v1.full.pdf). Does he know what random means? Was the sample in the Stanford study in any way random?

There was some useful information gained. Many of the conclusions Mr Deace makes from the information are off the wall IMO. I don't know this commentator but I wonder about his educational background in scientific literacy.

This image is from the CDC showing how the death rate for influenza is calculated. Do you see anything in the denominator for including anyone who did not have symptoms of an influenza illness. No you do not. You cannot compare the 0.1% death rate for flu which only includes those with an illness severe enough to possibly have been influenza to a non-random sample of persons with antibodies to COVID. Scientific illiteracy. The material to educate yourself before going onto a radio or TV show is available via Google. The problem is not that you watched it on The Blaze, the problem is the person talking is wrong in his interpretation and comprehension of the study.