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

#141

Post by op00to » Thu, Apr 23, 2020, 7:07 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.

Do non-severe cases cause lung damage too? Is the lung damage heal able?

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

#142

Post by tree3 » Thu, Apr 23, 2020, 7:07 PM UTC

chrisseaton wrote: post #54

istorical wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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’.

> presumably not at work and therefore not essential workers.

"presumably" is the key word. They aren't saying "definitely".

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

#143

Post by jdm2212 » Thu, Apr 23, 2020, 7:07 PM UTC

DeonPenny wrote: post #100

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.

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.

The SK/Taiwan/Chinese/Singapore approach to quarantine has been to isolate people away from their families if they're thought to be sick (i.e., in a hotel or military barracks). That's how you make quarantine actually work.

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

#144

Post by daxfohl » Thu, Apr 23, 2020, 7:07 PM UTC

cycrutchfield wrote: post #130

daxfohl wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I was responding to the contents of the parent comment. I agree with you (see a separate branch of the comment tree), but that's not part of what the parent comment was talking about.

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

#145

Post by godelski » Thu, Apr 23, 2020, 7:08 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…

Why does recruiting through Facebook invalidate the results? If it is a representative sample it is a representative sample regardless of how people were recruited.

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

#146

Post by chasd00 » Thu, Apr 23, 2020, 7:08 PM UTC

TechBro8615 wrote: post #96

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?

has anyone modeled at one point deaths from economic collapse overtake deaths from Covid19?

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

#147

Post by rocha » Thu, Apr 23, 2020, 7:09 PM UTC

nicoburns wrote: post #103

WrtCdEvrydy wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a small state with a lot of people packed next to each other. Lots of people use public transit... subways are less than six feet apart.

If the NY subway is anything like London, people will be less than 6 inches apart at rush hour. I imagine that will have played a big part in the spread in both of those cities.

A counter argument is that the same didn't happen (or hasn't happened yet) in cities that also have massive public transportation systems like Tokyo or Seoul. There is probably many confounding factors, such as mask use, no talking on the subway, etc, to make pointing to one particular factor very hard.

EDIT: typo

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

#148

Post by saalweachter » Thu, Apr 23, 2020, 7:10 PM UTC

DeonPenny wrote: post #125

vkou wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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%…

0.89%: https://www.google.com/search?q=15000+%2F+1.68+million+*+100

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

#149

Post by kayoone » Thu, Apr 23, 2020, 7:10 PM UTC

saalweachter wrote: post #111

chasd00 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The most likely answer is that NYC was just a good place for it to spread which had plenty of travelers to get things started fast, but that that the death rates aren't particularly high -- everywhere that has fewer deaths has just had less of their population infected ... so far.

Germany has about as many cases in total as NY, yet less than 1/2 of the deaths. The death rate seems high in NY, maybe because hospitals could not cope?

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

#150

Post by qqqwerty » Thu, Apr 23, 2020, 7:10 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…

The only good news that I am getting out of this, is that NYC seems to have avoided the dreaded 3-5% fatality rate that was the presumed worse case scenario (massive community spread, overloaded healthcare system). But the lockdown likely helped a lot, and it seems like they are seeing around 1% IFR, so I am not sure this really changes anything. Our understanding of the disease and how to treat it may also be getting better, but it still seems like if we let this thing run wild through the population (as some people on here are proposing) local health care systems will collapse and we will have a IFR orders of magnitude higher than the flu.

And as you pointed out, if the study came back with an infection rate of 50%, I am not sure I would consider that good news either. That means it would be nearly impossible to isolate vulnerable populations. So while a 50% infection rate would mean the IFR is lower, it also means opening things back up and only isolating the vulnerable would not work to protect them.