BREAKING NEWS: confined workers were MORE contaminated than non-confined workers, Spanish study shows

4 posts / 0 new
Last post
Tagore2
BREAKING NEWS: confined workers were MORE contaminated than non-confined workers, Spanish study shows
Printer-friendly version

The IHU Méditerranée-infection IHU reports the following preliminary scientific communication:

Quote:

A study was carried out by the Spanish authorities on 60,983 people, detecting antibodies against COVID-19. One result in particular caught our attention: active workers were separated into two groups: "essential workers", therefore not being confined to the home, compared to other active workers, confined to Spain. The difference is very interesting: people who were not confined were less infected than those confined.

These data, based on massive studies, allow us to think on the importance of home confinement which, in Spain, has not proven to be effective, whereas the closure of collective gathering places (stadiums, concert halls, places of worship ...) during these epidemic periods is full of common sense.

This is in line with the data we have at the IHU, where only 3.5% of the staff, who are in constant contact with patients, have antibodies indicating an infection, whether diagnosed or not.

Source: Estudio nacional de sero – epidemiologia de la infecction por SARS-COV-2 en Espana. Inform preliminary 13 of mayo of 2020.

Source: EFFICACITÉ DU CONFINEMENT ET ÉTUDE DE PRÉVALENCE SÉROLOGIQUE EN ESPAGNE

Tagore2
Original study source:

Original study source: Primera oleada informe seroprevalencia covid-19 en España, page 8, laste line.

Presence of antibodies (indicates that the person has been infected):

  • general population: 5.0%
  • confined workers: 6.3%
  • non-confined workers: 5.3%
jk1921
Recently, NY Gov. Cuomo

Recently, NY Gov. Cuomo reported that most of the new admissions to the hospital were of people who were "staying home." This is a curious finding, which could be down to false reporting (people not wanting to admit they had violated to stay at home order), but if its true it suggests it is much harder to isolate people than perhaps previously believed--people "staying at home" might still be making essential trips to grocery stores, pharmacies, etc. or having others bring these things to them and thus having contact with those infected. These individuals could also be infected by others they live in close proximity to who are going out.

These anitbody tests are all over the place. The figures quoted from Spain seem low compared to recent numbers out of NYC, which showed up to a quarter of the population already infected. There very well could be issues with the accuracy of the tests, but logically if those getting infected at the later stage of the first epidemic wave were staying at home, this might make sense in that the virus is now infecting those hardest to get to, suggesting herd immunity could be developing? That's pure speculation though, although if true it could call into question some of the logic behind the stay at home orders. Still, it is not clear why those confined would be more likely to be infected, unless that stat is skewed by those confined in group living arrangements?

Tagore2
80% of contaminations at home, and almost zero outside.

A Chinese study shows that the overwhelming majority of foci of contamination took place in dense, enclosed and poorly ventilated spaces, 80% of which were at home, and almost none outside (only 2 on 7324 analysed contamination cases).

Another Japanese study shows that the risks of contamination in an indoor environment were 18.7 higher than in an outdoor environment.

https://www.caducee.net/actualite-medicale/14932/coronavirus-90-des-contaminations-se-produiraient-de-facon-aeroportee-dans-les-lieux-clos-et-mal-ventiles.html