61–70 of 679 posts
Another datapoint suggesting the death rate of this virus is within 0.5%.
Mortality rate, case fatality rate and infection fatality rates are all different things and have different values. Infection fatality rate of the virus could be within 0.5% (because its the one that tries to take into account everyone who has been infected), mortality rate is very likely still the one WHO has published and the third, case fatality rate is ~38% in the US.
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…
The major problem in the Stanford study was that they ran a test that has a 3% false positive rate, and found that 3% of the test-takers tested positive. (And that apparently the asymptomatic COVID-19 rate is 90+% - which does not square with the Diamond princess data).
They could have ran that same study back in 2018, and would have gotten the exact same garbage results.
At what point have we scientifically reached "herd immunity"? Is it 50%, 90%, 99%?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I had the opposite conclusion. There are between 10k-15k COVID-19 associated deaths in NYC, depending on how you count (the higher rate is consistent with the excess-mortality data, I believe). That by itself produces a range of ~0.56%-0.86% if you assume 21.2 % of NYC has been infected (larger range if you allow for some error on the infection rate, obviously). Moreover, we don't know what fraction of the currently-…
0.5% comes from Cuomo’s presentation [1]. Also your 50% seems very high to me. My understanding is that 50% is about the death rate of covid patients requiring ventilation, so the overall death rate of people hospitalised for covid must be well below that. Also if you factor this timing impact, you have the same timing impact on the denominator, i.e. people who are infected but haven't developped antibodies yet. [1]…
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…
This is the big unknown that seems to be largely ignored, thank you for bringing it up. I am frequently seeing "herd immunity" thrown around without any qualification on the durability of the associated antibodies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I had the opposite conclusion. There are between 10k-15k COVID-19 associated deaths in NYC, depending on how you count (the higher rate is consistent with the excess-mortality data, I believe). That by itself produces a range of ~0.56%-0.86% if you assume 21.2 % of NYC has been infected (larger range if you allow for some error on the infection rate, obviously). Moreover, we don't know what fraction of the currently-…
“ Moreover, we don't know what fraction of the currently-infected who will die have already died. A reasonable guess might be 50%” I lost you at reasonable guess. Why not ~1%?
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…