Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Preliminary test results suggest 21% of NYC residents have Covid antibodies

6sqft.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 679 posts

Re: Preliminary test results suggest 21% of NYC residents have Covid antibodies

#51

Post by cma »

3fe9a03ccd14ca5 wrote: post #19
ccleve wrote: post #17

This study doesn't appear to suffer from the same methodology problems as the Stanford study of a few days ago. In that study, they recruited people through Facebook, and reported an infection rate that was low enough that it could have been caused by false positives. Here, it's closer to a random sample, but more importantly it shows really high rates. Those rates overwhelm any error due to false positives. Also, it…

What's weird is that the Stanford study was suggested to have exaggerated the results, since those who suspected themselves as having the virus at one time were more likely to volunteer (allegedly). However, those results were nowhere near as big as this (I think like 2%-3% versus the 20%!)

Exaggerated in that the California study predicted a flu like IFR (Ioannidis, one of the authors, has been pushing that as his pet theory for over a month). This shows it is more likely several times that.

Re: Preliminary test results suggest 21% of NYC residents have Covid antibodies

#54

Post by chrisseaton »

istorical wrote: post #44
chrisseaton wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand - essential workers still going to work also have to eat, and so go to grocery shops like other people.

The sampling location isn't meant to exclude essential workers, it's meant to avoid only sampling essential workers. IE: if you measured at workplaces that would capture only essential workers, if you measure at people's homes during work hours, you get people who mostly are quarantining, if you measure at a grocery, you might get a mix of both, etc.

> isn't meant to exclude essential workers

But is specifically says

> and therefore not essential workers

It doesn’t say ‘not only’ - it says ‘not’.

Re: Preliminary test results suggest 21% of NYC residents have Covid antibodies

#55

Post by cjhopman »

ccleve wrote: post #17

This study doesn't appear to suffer from the same methodology problems as the Stanford study of a few days ago. In that study, they recruited people through Facebook, and reported an infection rate that was low enough that it could have been caused by false positives. Here, it's closer to a random sample, but more importantly it shows really high rates. Those rates overwhelm any error due to false positives. Also, it…

Sure, but a person who goes to the store 7 times a week is ~7 times as likely to have been sampled compared to someone who goes only once a week. They are also ~7 times as likely to have contracted covid-19 at the grocery store. It's likely that they are also, in general, isolating less than the other.

This sampling would have a (possibly slight, but still unknown) bias towards people who are isolating less (who you would expect to then have a higher than average percent positive for antibodies, assuming isolating is helpful).

I don't think anyone knows whether or not this is a more representative sample than the stanford study.

Re: Preliminary test results suggest 21% of NYC residents have Covid antibodies

#57

Post by CubsFan1060 »

vkou wrote: post #24

If this study is accurate, and is not just working on garbage data, and if these antibodies actually mean long-term immunity, this means one of two things: 1. If the lockdown is lifted, we will see another ~60,000 to 100,000 deaths in NYC, before it will hit herd immunity. 2. Or, the lockdown will continue. The accuracy of antibody studies has been called into doubt, and as far as I know, nobody has ever followed up…

There is no reason why an all or none approach is necessary here, is there?

By my count, 10,120/15,740 of deaths have been folks over 70. If you kept people over 70 locked down (including their caretakers), you could significantly reduce the number of deaths while increasing the percentage that have had it.

In fact, only 9% of New York's population is over 70. So theoretically (though clearly not practically), you could get over the percentage required for herd immunity while reducing the deaths by 66%

Re: Preliminary test results suggest 21% of NYC residents have Covid antibodies

#58

Post by chasd00 »

brandmeyer wrote: post #33
jdm2212 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Roughly 1/1000 New Yorkers have died of coronavirus. At a 1% IFR, that suggests at least 10% of the state has gotten the virus. Probably more, because deaths are undercounted and many people who will die of the virus already have it but haven't died yet. In the Bay Area, almost no one has died of coronavirus so the infection rate should be next to nil.

I was astonished by your 1/1000 figure and had to look it up... If anything, its too low . 15k deaths (proven+probable) in 8M people is almost 2/1000. https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/covid/covid-19-data.page

that's crazy to me, what are the demographics of NYC? Is the population more susceptible to dying of Covid19 somehow? I still can't get my head around why NY has suffered so disproportionately.

Re: Preliminary test results suggest 21% of NYC residents have Covid antibodies

#59

Post by WrtCdEvrydy »

cjhopman wrote: post #55
ccleve wrote: post #17

This study doesn't appear to suffer from the same methodology problems as the Stanford study of a few days ago. In that study, they recruited people through Facebook, and reported an infection rate that was low enough that it could have been caused by false positives. Here, it's closer to a random sample, but more importantly it shows really high rates. Those rates overwhelm any error due to false positives. Also, it…

Sure, but a person who goes to the store 7 times a week is ~7 times as likely to have been sampled compared to someone who goes only once a week. They are also ~7 times as likely to have contracted covid-19 at the grocery store. It's likely that they are also, in general, isolating less than the other. This sampling would have a (possibly slight, but still unknown) bias towards people who are isolating less (who you…

Unfortunately, unless you go door to door knocking... you're gonna get biased data.

Re: Preliminary test results suggest 21% of NYC residents have Covid antibodies

#60

Post by glofish »

cma wrote: post #51
3fe9a03ccd14ca5 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's weird is that the Stanford study was suggested to have exaggerated the results, since those who suspected themselves as having the virus at one time were more likely to volunteer (allegedly). However, those results were nowhere near as big as this (I think like 2%-3% versus the 20%!)

Exaggerated in that the California study predicted a flu like IFR (Ioannidis, one of the authors, has been pushing that as his pet theory for over a month). This shows it is more likely several times that.

it doesn't contradic Ioannidis at all. He might be right in the end, and that would be an incredibly bitter pill to many.

We are getting closer and closer to the flu fatality rate.

from 5% to 3%, then 1% now 0.5% - smart money (and common sense) would bet that the rate will continue to drop,

I would expect that people living in healthier environment than NYC will fare even better. No way NYC IFR is the upper bound for the rest of the country. You could just as well expect it to be 10x higher than other places.

the flu rate is 0.1%, thus we already hit the order of magnitude.

Post reply on HN