It's not in all ELISA's and is very under-represented if sampled during height of the curve. +AB type & decay rates not adjusted for at all If you plotted your imputed IFR's compared to the median IFR's of those studies, the delta is rather large for the 5 that I checked.
Ugh. What I've been trying to explain is that this is accounted for already in test sensitivity. It's part of the reason that you get false negatives (the main other being delay to seroconversion)!
-
-
Are you developing your own test sensitivity calc for each study based on the dynamics of their epi timeline vs. dates samples were taken? Or are you taking the published sensitivities from the test manufacturer?
-
What I have been trying to explain is that if the test manu developed specs using PCR +ve vs. AB 1-3 months later, with a median follow-up of 2 months (wherein 90% of AB's still exist) Then a serology study is conducted in month 6 of an Epi (where 40% of AB's remain), it's under
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
