A single line often inverts meaning once you see what it
answers, so neighbouring messages are always shown.
-
Very good point - Daszak made a good one as well in the NPR - extrapolating the 3% serology to even a portion ofthe general population is a lot of sarbecovirus exposures - way more than a few lab ppl mist-netting at a few caves per year.
-
3% - that may well be every ~6 months given (a) exposures likely very low titer, and (b) seroreversion to CoVs. Ithink it's safe to say that a huge number of people are exposed to CoVs on a daily basis - and not just in China.
-
~5% serology seems to be the baseline false positive for just about everything - see Ebola in Sierra Leone etc.
-
... in Africa :wink:. That 2-3% number actually has pretty good baselines
-
2021-03-20 09:36
Kristian G. Andersen
Baseline sampled in e.g., Wuhan - of all places.
-
OK - baseline cross-reactivity with some sort of CoV
-
See waste-water in Europe in 2019
-
The 2-3% serological studies were specifically for SARS-like CoVs, with good baselines - so they might well be accurate. But yeah, getting a positive hit on a CoV serological assay - without controlling very closely for background- you can get anything, anywhere.
-
Andrew - since you have a keen eye. Do you know which 'mystery' sequences and viruses Jesse is talking about? I'm quite confused. I think maybe he means these? https://twitter.com/K_G_Andersen/status/1373310963680571397?s=20 Clearly they must be fragments they have managed to successfully sequence, as they mention in the Nature addendum - so absolutely no mystery. Am I missing something?