Where are you from?: Identifying place in talk.

Many social research projects, such as interviews, focus groups, and surveys, take local place as a given: they choose participants from a particular place, take this place as background for what the participants say, ask them about place‐related issues, and correlate responses with different places. But people can identify places in different ways, in geographical or relational terms, and in different levels of scale. This study analyses passages in focus groups in which participants say where they are from, shows that participants generally take the question and answer as routine, and then shows the ways the interaction develops when this routineness is broken, amended, or called into question. When a participant revises their statement of where they are from, they adapt to what they see as the knowledge and stance of their interlocutor, they re‐present themselves, and they create possibilities for further talk, defending, telling stories, or showing entitlement to an opinion. I argue that the ways people answer this question, interactively, can tell us about them, and us, as well as about their map of the world

Citywide serosurveillance of the initial SARS-CoV-2 outbreak in San Francisco using electronic health records.

Serosurveillance provides a unique opportunity to quantify the proportion of the population that has been exposed to pathogens. Here, we developed and piloted Serosurveillance for Continuous, ActionabLe Epidemiologic Intelligence of Transmission (SCALE-IT), a platform through which we systematically tested remnant samples from routine blood draws in two major hospital networks in San Francisco for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies during the early months of the pandemic. Importantly, SCALE-IT allows for algorithmic sample selection and rich data on covariates by leveraging electronic health record data. We estimated overall seroprevalence at 4.2%, corresponding to a case ascertainment rate of only 4.9%, and identified important heterogeneities by neighborhood, homelessness status, and race/ethnicity. Neighborhood seroprevalence estimates from SCALE-IT were comparable to local community-based surveys, while providing results encompassing the entire city that have been previously unavailable. Leveraging this hybrid serosurveillance approach has strong potential for application beyond this local context and for diseases other than SARS-CoV-2

SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence and neutralizing activity in donor and patient blood.

Given the limited availability of serological testing to date, the seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies in different populations has remained unclear. Here, we report very low SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in two San Francisco Bay Area populations. Seroreactivity was 0.26% in 387 hospitalized patients admitted for non-respiratory indications and 0.1% in 1,000 blood donors in early April 2020. We additionally describe the longitudinal dynamics of immunoglobulin-G (IgG), immunoglobulin-M (IgM), and in vitro neutralizing antibody titers in COVID-19 patients. The median time to seroconversion ranged from 10.3-11.0 days for these 3 assays. Neutralizing antibodies rose in tandem with immunoglobulin titers following symptom onset, and positive percent agreement between detection of IgG and neutralizing titers was >93%. These findings emphasize the importance of using highly accurate tests for surveillance studies in low-prevalence populations, and provide evidence that seroreactivity using SARS-CoV-2 anti-nucleocapsid protein IgG and anti-spike IgM assays are generally predictive of in vitro neutralizing capacity

SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence and neutralizing activity in donor and patient blood.

Given the limited availability of serological testing to date, the seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies in different populations has remained unclear. Here, we report very low SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in two San Francisco Bay Area populations. Seroreactivity was 0.26% in 387 hospitalized patients admitted for non-respiratory indications and 0.1% in 1,000 blood donors in early April 2020. We additionally describe the longitudinal dynamics of immunoglobulin-G (IgG), immunoglobulin-M (IgM), and in vitro neutralizing antibody titers in COVID-19 patients. The median time to seroconversion ranged from 10.3-11.0 days for these 3 assays. Neutralizing antibodies rose in tandem with immunoglobulin titers following symptom onset, and positive percent agreement between detection of IgG and neutralizing titers was >93%. These findings emphasize the importance of using highly accurate tests for surveillance studies in low-prevalence populations, and provide evidence that seroreactivity using SARS-CoV-2 anti-nucleocapsid protein IgG and anti-spike IgM assays are generally predictive of in vitro neutralizing capacity