This can’t be used that way. There’s massive selection bias in those who donate blood, especially now when donations are way down.
1 Like
Still doing ok in Manitoba lately. Usually ~40 cases a day the last two weeks.
Need to be vaccinated for just about everything, including to attend a licensed wedding.
1 Like
So much for herd immunity for blood donors?
Is that another antibody study?
3 Likes
Pretty much everything for me →
1 Like
And apparently anti vaxxers are less likely to get tested
I haven’t read the study, but I would hope that they tried to make adjustments for the selection bias?
OMG I totally forgot what the active ingredient in my cat’s heartworm medicine is. I’ll sleep better knowing I have these babies on hand if I really need them.
13 Likes
Don’t forget to check your goldfish bowl supplies.
Doesn’t say what flavor it is.
1 Like
Lol thanks for reminding me I’m late giving my dog her meds. Looks I have an extra active ingredient in there to really kick covids ass.
6 Likes
Goddamn my dogs are on a combo heartworm/flea stuff that doesn’t contain ivermectin. It says “spinosad + milbemycin oxime”. I’m taking it anyway just to be safe.
21 Likes
This is incorrect. They are detecting antibodies. You have no idea if they are from donors that had a mild or asymptomatic case.
This post isn’t really relevant to my criticism either. You’ll note that the sample of people giving blood is 85% white. It’s not representative of the USA. Hell the demographics aren’t even representative of the previous donor pool they compare to.
The conclusions made in this thread are not supported by the data presented. You absolutely cannot use this to say ‘oh well for herd immunity’.
Wouldn’t matter if they did really. You can’t really adjust for people who are willing to give blood in a pandemic. It’s a real issue. IMO, they’re very likely health conscious and informed about the massive shortages being faced right now.
1 Like
It’s not perfect, as the authors say, but they did adjust for demographic differences, as one would obviously expect.
There’s some confusion. I think Johnny was referring to the study posted by Suzzer, not the blood donor thing I posted.
I looked that study (the abstract, conclusions, meta stuff) and twitter thread from your post. The 83% figure was not just what they sampled, but it was adjusted for demographic figures. I don’t know if/how they tried to adjust for less tangible factors.
The number doesn’t seem that high anyway. It tested people who had antibodies from vaccine as well as infection and more than half the people in the US have had at least one shot. Some states have over 75% of people with at least one shot.
Again, that doesn’t mean you can use that to say the conclusion ‘oh well for herd immunity’. You also can’t just adjust your way out of a sample issue like that. The only limited conclusion you can make from that data is the one that they make.
My bad then. Apologies