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

#121

Post by luckylion » Thu, Apr 23, 2020, 7:00 PM UTC

slashdev wrote: post #89

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…

All things equal, it would be better to get it out of the way sooner. However, what it doesn't account for is: 1) can we flatten the curve enough that some people never get it because we get a vaccine? 2) can we flatten it until we find an effective treatment protocol, saving lives? 3) if we did nothing would the hospitals be overwhelmed leading to additional loss of life and a higher death rate? The first two are sp…

If we prolong it a lot with all the associated cost and 1 and 2 never happen, we've lost not just a large part of the economy, but also lives without anything to show for it.

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

#122

Post by credit_guy » Thu, Apr 23, 2020, 7:00 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…

Yes, the study is really good news for NYC. My thinking is that the state of emergency, currently in place until 5/15, will be extended at most once to 6/15. After that we'll be somewhat open for business. I imagine everyone will be advised to wear mask/gloves, to keep the social distance and to keep washing hands. Lots of people will continue to work from home, others will bike to work. Being summer, the virus will not be that contagious. When the November rebound is forecast to happen, the herd immunity will be much higher, hospitals better prepared, the medical world will have learned the most effective ways to treat this disease, so the fatality rate will go down to levels seen in Germany, or lower. Bottom line, I don't think we'll have another shelter-in-place in November-December.

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

#123

Post by cycrutchfield » Thu, Apr 23, 2020, 7:00 PM UTC

taeric wrote: post #88

jdm2212 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NYC is a younger, healthier city than the national average. NYC also has one of the best medical systems not just in America, but in the world. Roughly 0.2% of everyone in NYC has already died of COVID-19. So 0.2% is pretty close to a hard lower bound on the IFR for COVID-19. And I don't think anyone serious suggests every NYC resident has had COVID. I don't think anyone seriously suggests even half of NYC has had CO…

That it's a lower bound for IFR in NYC. With how widely that changes based on age alone, it could also vary based on location. Such that NYC could conceivably have the highest value for that in the US.

NYC is on average younger than the broader US population.

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

#124

Post by eloff » Thu, Apr 23, 2020, 7:01 PM UTC

taeric wrote: post #101

eloff wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree, see my sister comment. Even without data on lingering deficiencies, we can speculate with confidence that it carries a cost.

Speculation is fine. But we need data to back it. Right now, we don't. Could hypothesize that many being found with damage surviving, had damage going in. Would neatly explain why it hit them so hard.

I'm not speculating about the long term effects of covid19. I'm saying all sickness carries a cost as currently understood according to our theories of cellular senescence. You've missed my point entirely.

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

#125

Post by DeonPenny » Thu, Apr 23, 2020, 7:01 PM UTC

vkou wrote: post #82

DeonPenny wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We'd also need to make the decsision to continue a lockdown over a virus with a 99.5% survival rate or not. Seeing at the flu has a 99.9% survival rate does it make sense to destroy the economy over that.

First of all, it's not 99.5%. A naive interpretation of these numbers is a 1% death rate, not 0.5%. 15,000 dead, out of an estimated ~1,680,000 with antibodies. Second of all, deaths lag infections, and the actual death rate is closer to double the current death rate. Third of all, you have no idea that if someone has antibodies, they are immune. As far as I know, nobody has tried infecting antibody-positive people..…

Only if you think cuomo presentation is wrong because that what they quoted. Also you numbers are wrong 15,000 is only .18% of 1.6 million not 1.8%.

Also death lag infections in numbers but that wouldn't change the ratio of deaths to infections. Unless the infection rates are going up or down. Right now infection rates are lowering so you'd expect the death to infection rate to continue to stay in line with the 0.5% infection rate.

Also we have never shut down the economy with other disease it was generally assumed that you'd at least have limited immunity to disease with antibodies. I don't think swine flu or bird flu had this react why should this.

If we know only the sickest people are getting sick why don't we lift the quaretine on the people less likely to get sick or people with antibodies. It seems like we made the lockdown decision based on a lack of data. I don't know if continuing to do it when we do make sense. Especially because it could make people more sick not less.

Edit: correction used 8 million as denominator. 89% is correct

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

#126

Post by GVIrish » Thu, Apr 23, 2020, 7:02 PM UTC

Exmoor wrote: post #11

cm2187 wrote: post #2

Another datapoint suggesting the death rate of this virus is within 0.5%.

Also another data point suggesting that the virus is much more contagious than the early estimates said. I personally don't see how the test, track and trace efforts that have been touted as the only way to open things up can work with a virus with these characteristics. You would need to test a huge percentage of the population each day with quick results tests and something like that is many months away from being…

The key is testing, contract tracing, and quarantining when the number of cases is small. That's what South Korea, New Zealand, and a few other countries did and they've all suffered relatively few fatalities. You still need a massive amount of tests to contain an outbreak, but the upside is that if you contain it early you don't need toe enact clumsy and broad measures like lockdowns.

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

#127

Post by ineedasername » Thu, Apr 23, 2020, 7:02 PM UTC

WrtCdEvrydy wrote: post #59

cjhopman wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Or truly random sampling that includes appropriate proportions of sub groups, e.g, socioeconomic status etc. Otherwise you have to know on all of the doors. But it's still a lot: for a 95% confidence level and 2% margin of error, for NYC you would need to test about 2,400 people. Assuming a response rate of 10%, you need to knock on 24,000 doors.

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

#128

Post by eloff » Thu, Apr 23, 2020, 7:02 PM UTC

DeonPenny wrote: post #106

eloff wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree, see my sister comment. Even without data on lingering deficiencies, we can speculate with confidence that it carries a cost.

But you shouldnt do that. Just like when we believe the death rate was 3% it seems we can't be confident in anything we've been told.

You've missed my point.

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

#129

Post by revnode » Thu, Apr 23, 2020, 7:02 PM UTC

tunesmith wrote: post #75

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…

Sorry, can someone spell out how this might be good news? 21% is still a long way from herd immunity, and NYC's hospital system has been severely strained getting to this point. On top of that, the hospitalization rate still seems disproportionate to someone getting the flu - maybe it's five times as fatal, but it's > 5x the flu hospitalization rate. It's not like the virus has become less dangerous, we're just reali…

> Sorry, can someone spell out how this might be good news?

It's good news because it strongly suggests that mortality is much less than previously suspected. There were numbers floating around from anywhere between 10% to 3% a few weeks back. A mortality rate < 1% is very good news because it means fewer people will die in the long run.

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

#130

Post by cycrutchfield » Thu, Apr 23, 2020, 7:02 PM UTC

daxfohl wrote: post #110

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.

But that's going to happen anyway because people will catch it until we hit herd immunity. Unless a vaccine comes out before we get there, which seems pretty iffy at this point. I do think we can plan for the isolation of that population for a couple of months if we have some strong leadership. Unfortunately that seems to be lacking right now.

>But that's going to happen anyway because people will catch it until we hit herd immunity

It's about managing the hospitalization rate so that the medical system doesn't get overwhelmed.