That's useful, thanks. Though an estimate of seroprevalence based on a blood bank survey (both of these are from the same group, using the same method) has issues with bias (in particular, see the number of re-weightings performed and the huge impact of these adjustments in Figure 2A of the second link), that makes me hesitant to believe any claim starting with "75% of the population was infected, therefore..."
In other words: if we're seeing a resurgence in cases now, the parsimonious answer is that the blood-bank survey estimate was wrong, not that the virus is escaping all immunity. My prior probability of this explanation is dramatically increased when I see that the seroprevalence data was adjusted upward by a factor of 2-3 to account for "seroreversion" (which is essentially guessing).
Comments
Researchers who tested blood samples from blood banks in Manaus estimated 66% by the end of the first wave [1]. That rises to 76% by October [2].
[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02948-4
[2] https://science.sciencemag.org/content/371/6526/288
That's useful, thanks. Though an estimate of seroprevalence based on a blood bank survey (both of these are from the same group, using the same method) has issues with bias (in particular, see the number of re-weightings performed and the huge impact of these adjustments in Figure 2A of the second link), that makes me hesitant to believe any claim starting with "75% of the population was infected, therefore..."
In other words: if we're seeing a resurgence in cases now, the parsimonious answer is that the blood-bank survey estimate was wrong, not that the virus is escaping all immunity. My prior probability of this explanation is dramatically increased when I see that the seroprevalence data was adjusted upward by a factor of 2-3 to account for "seroreversion" (which is essentially guessing).