Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Medicine Biotech

Stanford Begins America's First Large-Scale Test For Coronavirus Antibodies (eastbaytimes.com) 82

Posted by EditorDavid from the studies-at-Stanford dept.
"Crowds flock to Santa Clara County test sites to learn if they have antibodies to COVID-19," reports the Bay Area Newsgroup, citing long lines of cars forming at three Stanford research sites for the drive-through tests: The 2,500 test slots on Friday and Saturday filled up within hours, as news of the project -- the first large scale study of its type in the U.S. -- spread quickly through the county. The test detects protective antibodies to the virus rather than the virus itself. This gives scientists a snapshot of how many people in the county have already been infected, but weren't seriously sick and didn't realize it. And it tells residents whether they carry potentially protective antibodies -- so may be immune to future infection. "This is critical information," said principal investigator Dr. Eran Bendavid, an infectious disease specialist and professor of medicine with Stanford Health Policy.

"We will show the country what to do and how to do it," he said... It can guide public health measures and policies -- showing where the epidemic is heading, when it is safe to lift shelter-in-place restrictions and how far away we are from "herd immunity," when it becomes harder for a virus to spread...

This approach, called a "serological test," remains a research tool and is not yet widely available in the United States. Stanford is working on a second test that will be deployed for more widespread use. U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval is imminent -- "within hours, not days," [California governor] Newsom said.... Meanwhile, a global effort to study antibodies is being coordinated by the World Health Organization. Called Solidarity II, more than a half dozen countries will pool their findings from large-scale testing...

It is not yet proven that these antibodies actually provide protection... But there are promising clues that COVID-19 might act like it's closest cousin, the SARS virus, which triggers an immune response that persists for at least three years. In a Chinese study of rhesus monkeys, COVID-19 antibodies protected the animals from a second infection.

If protected, people could potentially return to work. There is also the prospect that the antibodies could be used as therapy against the disease. Dozens of companies are working to develop antibody tests, as are researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The article notes that United Biomedical Inc will "soon" also provide free antibody testing to all 8,000 residents in Telluride, Colorado, and in some countries in Asia.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Stanford Begins America's First Large-Scale Test For Coronavirus Antibodies More

Stanford Begins America's First Large-Scale Test For Coronavirus Antibodies

Comments Filter:

  • It ended yesterday. Now it's analysis.

  • Makes the results utterly meaningless, I am afraid.

    • It might make them less useful than they otherwise could be, but certainly not meaningless. Even a flawed study is beneficial as long as you know and understand the flaws and don't try to use the results to make conclusions that the data cannot support.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by gweihir ( 88907 )

        Oh, and you think the flaws are understood here and it will not be used to make predictions the data does not support?

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by HiThere ( 15173 )

          Used by who? There are definitely those who will abuse the results, whatever they turn out to be. But it's still a useful study. If it they follow those with the antibodies and find that they either catch or don't catch COVID-19 in the future, this will be an indication of whether antibodies provide immunity. It's also an indication of what of those in the immediate community have previously been exposed (significantly) to the disease. The lack of controls is unfortunate, and limits the value, but is a

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by gweihir ( 88907 )

            Well, meaningless BS statistics like this one are done all the time, and a lot of decisions are made based on them. This time the potential decisions are a little more critical though.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by AK Marc ( 707885 )
          The flaws of self-selected samples are actually quite small. So long as you extrapolate only to that self selected group. And usually work for everyone.

          The biggest error in self-selection is not when you are looking for a 95% confidence, but looking for a 50% answer. Truman vs Dewey. Dewey had a landslide win, if you only polled self-selected telephone owners. But Truman won when you self-selected among voters.

          More information is always better than less, even if evil people might try to manipulate it

    • Re:So this is not a random sample? (Score:5, Informative)

      by backslashdot ( 95548 ) on Sunday April 05, 2020 @12:03PM (#59910690)

      You statement is mostly false. It was advertised in different areas using multiple methods. While there should be some bias inevitably its wrong to say it's meaningless -- especially when you can account for those biases (you must answer a survey before you show up). Actually much of the WHO population seroprevalence survey protocols/guidelines were followed.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by gweihir ( 88907 )

        As soon as something like this is advertised, its results become useless...

        • Fucking FDA (Score:1)

          by Anonymous Coward

          "U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval is imminent..."

          The FDA has been a roadblock to every treatment and test since day one.

          Pencil Pushers gotta push their fucking pencils.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by HiThere ( 15173 )

            Well then, just scarf up on aquarium cleaner. It's been reported that some people thought that was a good idea.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by AK Marc ( 707885 )
          So, a larger sample size is worse?
    • I suspect it will skew towards people infected as people showing symptoms who couldn't get tested want to know if they had it.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by gweihir ( 88907 )

        Alternatively, it could skew towards the hypochondriac and the panicky. The point is that any skew you cannot clearly quantify makes the data pretty much worthless.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by HiThere ( 15173 )

          And you're wrong. It's not perfect, but then the test isn't one intended for public use. It gives a reasonable ballpark estimate, and there are other uses for which it is sufficiently good. E.g. if you do a longitudinal study, you could check whether those who currently show antibodies become sick with COVID19 again, and whether the second case is worse than the first (which is not unprecedented among corona viruses).

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by gweihir ( 88907 )

            It gives a reasonable ballpark estimate, and there are other uses for which it is sufficiently good.

            No, it does not. That is the problem with it. Or rather that it may or may not deliver a reasonable estimate and there is no way to tell which it is.

            Seriously, why are they messing this up?

            • One does what one can, especially with "lockdowns" everywhere.

              So, for the first tests, they're doing something local and economical. One could call this "unit or alpha testing".
              From TFA...
              "This approach, called a “serological test,” remains a research tool and is not yet widely available in the United States."

              ...further...

              "Stanford is working on a second test that will be deployed for more widespread use. U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval is imminent"

              One could call this "beta testing".

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by gweihir ( 88907 )

                well, it may just be so they can appear to be doing something fast or first, i.e. basically a marketing show. That would make sense. And then, when they have sold their product, they could do some real tests with meaningful border-conditions.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by AHuxley ( 892839 )
      Nations and experts fear what the results would be.
      So they test the skilled workers, professionals, people they need to get back to work. Who is needed to stay working.
      Keep the numbers low and give a select few needed to work in the population hope.
      The idea is to get as many skilled people working. To keep the farms, city areas in expert workers.
      That saves on reagents, test kits and allows govs to control the numbers of sick.
      No unexpected jumps in the infected due to mass testing.
      Italy showed what t
    • This is a surveillance study for antibodies, what benefit would randomization serve? This will build an antibody bank for future testing, and may lead to a vaccine.

    • "The entire population of a community" is an acceptable way to get a random sample. You don't have to choose your individuals randomly to get a random sample...and using as much of a population as you can manage allows you to get a much more accurate picture of the actual rates of severe illness and deaths because you can just use that community's already-known numbers. Plus, random sampling is meant to give you an approximation of an entire population--which is why you can afford to relax on the random a

  • finally some better news (Score:5, Insightful)

    by e**(i pi)-1 ( 462311 ) on Sunday April 05, 2020 @11:51AM (#59910658) Homepage Journal
    Very good. It should be clear by now, that science is the best hope will save us from this mess. Large scale testing for anti-bodies will help to bring back some normality. There are still too many unknowns and knowing how many actually have been exposed will help. Would be nice if one could use this immediately also in other parts of the country and the world.
  • But at least someone is working on it.

  • Other results (Score:4, Insightful)

    by alvinrod ( 889928 ) on Sunday April 05, 2020 @12:05PM (#59910698)
    There was some testing done in Iceland that found about half of people who had the virus were asymptomatic [cnn.com]. This was based on a decent sized sample of their population as well. I wouldn't be surprised if we have a significantly higher number of people with this than we've anticipated.

    The more interesting question is what factors are resulting in some people having almost no symptoms and not becoming ill at all and those who seem to be heavily affected. Although it's mainly the elderly that are dying or becoming seriously ill, there have been several cases where young, seemingly healthy individuals have died.
    • Symptomatic at the time of the study maybe. Did they check again later to see if they were still symptomatic?
      With delayed symptoms they could have just not had time to develop symptoms yet. The people were also self reporting symptoms. It's not a real study.
      From your link

      "What it means in my mind, is that because we are screening the general population, we are catching people early in the infection before they start showing symptoms," Stefánsson said.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by khchung ( 462899 )

        From your link

        "What it means in my mind, is that because we are screening the general population, we are catching people early in the infection before they start showing symptoms," Stefánsson said.

        A CNN headline that was the opposite of the conclusion of the article? Unthinkable! /s

        • A CNN headline that was the opposite of the conclusion of the article? Unthinkable! /s

          I'm missing the sarcasm.

          Headline: Iceland lab's testing suggests 50% of coronavirus cases have no symptoms
          Body: What have been the main findings?
          "Although fewer than 1% of the tests came back positive for the virus, the company's founder Dr. Kári Stefánsson told CNN that around 50% of those who tested positive said they were asymptomatic"

          That sounds suggestive to me.

      • The people were also self reporting symptoms. It's not a real study.

        True, and it's a start. They recognize the bias, and are taking steps to solve for that...
        "Keep in mind that the screening is now randomized, but voluntary so there is some bias in the data," the Directorate of Health said in a statement, adding that a "randomized screening program has started and a blood serum screening for antibodies is planned."

        • It was fairly sensationalist. But there are data being found. There are other actual studies underway too. There should be results soon. And then we can start to get more of an indication for how widespread it is in various countries, under what circumstances etc. And get a better idea about the actual severity of the situation. I'm guessing pretty severe. It will be good to know more accurately one way or the other. Hopefully I'm wrong.
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by HiThere ( 15173 )

      If I read the article correctly, it was a drive-through test, and people didn't get out of their cars. I think the 6 foot separation between drivers was being adhered to.

    • "The perfect is the enemy of the good"

  • Now if they could conduct that test in New York, or Wuhan China?

    Would certainly be more useful to extrapolate if herd immunity is a thing with this bug.

    (But you have to start somewhere).

  • Why are american institutions spending resources out side of the country during a national crisis? This implies those other nations cannot help themselves.

    • No it doesn't.

      It meand they aren't hyper-selfish lizard-brained Psychopath-Americans. But humans. With compassion and team spirit.
      And unless they save you with them, they will be winning.
      So be nice. Or die. Your choice.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by AHuxley ( 892839 )
        Many nations have to wait for supply news from India and Communist China.
        The "team spirit" is every advanced nation trying to get to a vaccine.
        The other "team spirit" project is to try and make masks to a good standard. Nothing having to wait for the cost and quality from Communist China.
        Another "team spirit" project in a nation is to make and test their own test kits due to the past "export" quality out of Communist China. Nations have to start looking after their own production lines and find produce
    • It's called 'enlightened self-interest': you help others because in the long term it helps you (and your country, in this case).
      Long-term effects of such policies include: countries you help now looking upon you favorably later, and perhaps helping you when you need something from them, or perhaps just their co-operation.
      In the current pandemic crisis helping other countries contain it themselves also helps contain it globally, which means a reduced chance for it to infect your own population.
      Isolationis

  • Being immune does not mean you can't spread it.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by HiThere ( 15173 )

      This, of course, is part of the real problem. Rule of thumb guidelines say that you should expect to be contagious for 3 days before symptoms appear and for a week after they disappear. This is based around average cases, though, and there are extreme cases that are longer at both ends. There was a report of one case that was still contagious after 49 days until he was treated with serum (presumably antigens, but possibly both antigens and antibodies).

      • Rule of thumb guidelines say that you should expect to be contagious for 3 days before symptoms appear and for a week after they disappear. This is based around average cases, though, and there are extreme cases that are longer at both ends.

        Do you have a citation for this? Your assertion is remarkably detailed.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by HiThere ( 15173 )

          It may be detailed, but it's third or fourth hand. The original patient was in China, if that helps, and the original report was in Chinese.

          IIRC, the patient was found in Wuhan, but just HOW s/he was found, I haven't a clue.

          The headline on the news article was talking about a (paraphrase)"new mutated version of COVID-19", but the article didn't substantiate the headline.

          I probably followed a link from NewsNow to find the story, and if pages don't display without enabling javascript, I don't see them. Not,

    • I don't know about you but I don't even want to consider the possiblity that humans could be immune carriers of this, capable of infecting non-immune people, and perhaps be life-long carriers; it would create an entire class of people that would have to be segregated from the rest of the population, and I don't know about you but to me that'd be a nightmarish apocalyptic scenario in and of itself. There would be people who would insist that such a class of people be exterminated 'for the public good'. Serio

  • Yes, please, and I'd like this test myself (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    44 days ago I was down sick for 10 days, and it was directly in my chest, never had any upper respiratory symptoms, no sore throat, just a high fever for a few days, a tendency to want to cough, and generally feeling like crap. I can't remember ever getting sick before quite that way, everything always starts with a sore throat and/or something in my sinuses. Pounded expectorant and cough suppressant, stayed home in bed, and 10 days later was back to work -- but in the intervening weeks, I've felt like (rol

  • Not being altogether sarcastic (Score:3)

    by Baleet ( 4705757 ) on Sunday April 05, 2020 @05:30PM (#59911484)

    "We will show the country what to do and how to do it," he said.

    It's about time somebody did.

  • To get herd immunity without a vaccine would require _at least_ two thirds of the population getting sick with the coronavirus, probably even more (depending on the R0). As a big portion of people require hospitalization, even ICU level of treatment, and the mortality is high, it would be a terribly bad idea to aim for herd immunity.

    Have a look at Italy. It is estimated that 10 million people have actually caught the illness. They also estimate that 60 thousand people have died (there are a lot of undiagnos

  • "You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else" --Churchill

Slashdot Top Deals

Don't tell me how hard you work. Tell me how much you get done. -- James J. Ling

Close