Preliminary test results suggest 21% of NYC residents have Covid antibodies • Hacker News Board

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

#91

Post by taeric » Thu, Apr 23, 2020, 6:46 PM UTC

jdm2212 wrote: post #85

daxfohl wrote: post #72

I find myself reconsidering the original proposition by England to isolate the most vulnerable for a couple months and let the virus work its course through the less vulnerable population. If death rate is substantially lower among the under 50 crowd, this could work its way through with a fairly low death toll, and result in a herd immunity within a couple months. This slow burn approach we're doing however seems po…

The outcomes aren't just death and recovery. There's also the possibility of long-term heart, lung, and kidney damage. And the blood thinners used to prevent coronavirus blood clots can cause brain bleeding. Those happen in younger people, too. And realistically there's no way to isolate those over 50. They generally live with, work with, or are cared for by younger people.

This feels like fear talking. As more data comes in, we are seeing more people with no affects. Not just mild, but nigh non existent.

It is agreed that something gives people severe cases. Severe includes death and recovered with damage. We don't seem to have data letting you know who or what would land there.

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

#92

Post by eloff » Thu, Apr 23, 2020, 6:47 PM UTC

jdm2212 wrote: post #85

daxfohl wrote: post #72

I find myself reconsidering the original proposition by England to isolate the most vulnerable for a couple months and let the virus work its course through the less vulnerable population. If death rate is substantially lower among the under 50 crowd, this could work its way through with a fairly low death toll, and result in a herd immunity within a couple months. This slow burn approach we're doing however seems po…

The outcomes aren't just death and recovery. There's also the possibility of long-term heart, lung, and kidney damage. And the blood thinners used to prevent coronavirus blood clots can cause brain bleeding. Those happen in younger people, too. And realistically there's no way to isolate those over 50. They generally live with, work with, or are cared for by younger people.

Yes, recovery is not binary. Even if you recover fully you've expended some percent of your finite lifetime capacity to heal your organs. It may well have taken years off your life. That's true for other illnesses to. The flu doesn't just cost you a week of productivity.

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

#93

Post by djrogers » Thu, Apr 23, 2020, 6:47 PM UTC

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…

The purpose of the lockdown isn't to hide until the virus magically disappears, it's to flatten the curve and allow the virus to spread slowly enough that it doesn't overwhelm the healthcare system in any given place.

Maintaining a lockdown will not lower the number of people who get the virus, it will merely extend how long it takes to get there.

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

#94

Post by eloff » Thu, Apr 23, 2020, 6:48 PM UTC

taeric wrote: post #91

jdm2212 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The outcomes aren't just death and recovery. There's also the possibility of long-term heart, lung, and kidney damage. And the blood thinners used to prevent coronavirus blood clots can cause brain bleeding. Those happen in younger people, too. And realistically there's no way to isolate those over 50. They generally live with, work with, or are cared for by younger people.

This feels like fear talking. As more data comes in, we are seeing more people with no affects. Not just mild, but nigh non existent. It is agreed that something gives people severe cases. Severe includes death and recovered with damage. We don't seem to have data letting you know who or what would land there.

I disagree, see my sister comment.

Even without data on lingering deficiencies, we can speculate with confidence that it carries a cost.

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

#95

Post by taeric » Thu, Apr 23, 2020, 6:48 PM UTC

grandmczeb wrote: post #90

djrogers wrote: post #87

I'm starting to wonder if there aren't 2 (or more) transmission methods for this virus with differing symptoms. Aerosol transmission with 'I got a cold' type symptoms, and droplet transmission with 'I got the worst cold I've ever had' type symptoms.

Why would different transmission methods result in different symptoms?

Viral load, is what this typically refers to. Akin to an allergic person seeing one cat versus a room full of them.

And, of course, for some people with allergies, contact where a cat has been is enough. ;)

So... Complicated.

Edit: was corrected down thread that this is infection dose, not viral load.

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

#96

Post by TechBro8615 » Thu, Apr 23, 2020, 6:48 PM UTC

So, at what point can we declare the lockdown to be a harmful overreaction and start opening countries up? Will we hold anyone accountable for models which proved to be pessimistic by orders of magnitude, causing implosion of economies around the world?

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

#97

Post by etimberg » Thu, Apr 23, 2020, 6:49 PM UTC

grandmczeb wrote: post #90

djrogers wrote: post #87

I'm starting to wonder if there aren't 2 (or more) transmission methods for this virus with differing symptoms. Aerosol transmission with 'I got a cold' type symptoms, and droplet transmission with 'I got the worst cold I've ever had' type symptoms.

Why would different transmission methods result in different symptoms?

Perhaps different amount of viral load

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

#98

Post by ineedasername » Thu, Apr 23, 2020, 6:49 PM UTC

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…

I couldn't find any detailed write up about their selection methods for participants, only the basics of where they found them. Without that, it is very hard to determine whether or not there's some flavor of selection bias: If it is voluntary, and they do not screen out people who report having had cold/flu symptoms, then they run the risk of attracting a disproportionate number of people who volunteer because they're curious if their prior symptoms were actually coronavirus. That would make it far from a random sample. The fact that they sampled only people actually leaving their house is also a form of selection bias: these are the people more likely to be exposed and may represent a disproportionately high infection rate as well. So I await further information.

That said, even if it's overall 0.6%, that is still 6x higher than flu, and higher than H1N1 which had a CFR around 0.1 for areas with adequate health care. (much higher when there was not adequate care, but that is not dissimilar to Covid.)

So no matter what, no one should be walking away from this study saying "See it's no big deal! Just the Flu/Cold etc!"

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

#99

Post by kgwgk » Thu, Apr 23, 2020, 6:49 PM UTC

TheBlight wrote: post #47

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%!)

What's interesting is if you look at the rest of NY numbers (-NYC,LI,Westchester). That has infection at 3.6%. Santa Clara was estimated to be 3% and LA county 4%. So it's in strong agreement with those areas.

But the number of deaths does not agree.

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

#100

Post by DeonPenny » Thu, Apr 23, 2020, 6:50 PM UTC

jdm2212 wrote: post #85

daxfohl wrote: post #72

I find myself reconsidering the original proposition by England to isolate the most vulnerable for a couple months and let the virus work its course through the less vulnerable population. If death rate is substantially lower among the under 50 crowd, this could work its way through with a fairly low death toll, and result in a herd immunity within a couple months. This slow burn approach we're doing however seems po…

The outcomes aren't just death and recovery. There's also the possibility of long-term heart, lung, and kidney damage. And the blood thinners used to prevent coronavirus blood clots can cause brain bleeding. Those happen in younger people, too. And realistically there's no way to isolate those over 50. They generally live with, work with, or are cared for by younger people.

Wouldnt that mean quartine would never work because it make sense that those younger people going outside would make those 60 olds sick regardless of the quarantine.