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

161–170 of 679 posts

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

#161

Post by taeric »

eloff wrote: post #124
taeric wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And you are missing mine. Agreed there could be long term things. Yes, we should study that and watch for it.

If that is the extent of your point, then my response is "yes, and?"

Your framing, though, begs the question that mild cases have long term damage. We have zero evidence of that. Literally none.

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

#162

Post by taeric »

op00to wrote: post #141
taeric wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

That is the point of my question. There has been no evidence of damage in non severe cases. Indeed, we are having to get complicated testing to find out many people had it at all.

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

#163

Post by ferzul »

ineedasername wrote: post #98
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'…

0.6% this is the estimated ifr. comparing it to the cfr of flu is not right, which is about ten times less than the flu ifr - or about 60 times less than this figure. your conclusion is upheld, but even moreso

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

#164

Post by eanzenberg »

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…

This study is good news... I'd be interested to project the rate of infections WITHOUT shutting down the economy for what's now going on 6 weeks. Seems like it was all in vain.

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

#165

Post by taeric »

jdm2212 wrote: post #119
taeric wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 younger and healthier than the US average so these are lower bounds for national average outcomes.

A datum that is hard to square when the deaths are still dominated by the older population. If you had convinced everyone over seventy to move out of NYC last year, their CFR would be a fraction of what it is now.

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

#166

Post by treis »

cycrutchfield wrote: post #133
luckylion wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't think you quite understand what happens to the fatality rate once hospitals become overwhelmed. That 1% IFR will quickly become 3-5% IFR.

That isn't supported by any facts and is totally wrong. Our ability to treat viral pneumonia is very limited. We aren't saving 60-90% of patients that otherwise would die which your numbers imply. We can move the needle a bit and maybe save 20% of them. As an example, 90% of patients that go on ventilators still die.

Even in a situation where hospitals are getting overwhelmed it won't make much difference. Much of the care that happens is pointless. That 85 year old obese patient with chronic heart failure ain't making it no matter what you do. So if we are getting overwhelmed we can triage and not see much impact on fatality rates because patients like that are dying either way.

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

#167

Post by taeric »

cycrutchfield wrote: post #123
taeric wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And the deaths are concentrated on the older population. They do have younger people. They also have more nursing homes and assisted care. They literally have more of everything.

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

#169

Post by cma »

jsnell wrote: post #114
glofish wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 fo…

That's some major revisionism. No credible source was ever suggesting a 5% IFR. For example the Imperial model was using 0.9% given UK's age distribution. That looks likely to be spot on. And Ioannidis? He was quite certain that the CFR was going to be a little higher than 0.1%. Yes. CFR, not IFR. So he's off by two orders of magnitude .

At various points in interviews and articles he used Diamond Princess, South Korea, Germany, Iceland as strong evidence of miniscule fatality rates, in every single case selectively ignoring that deaths lag symptoms which was already well known at the time. All of them had their death rates double or more after he used them, and it was easily predictable based on recent exponential growth and death lag.

In his stat article he was saying it is conceivable if we didn't know about it we wouldn't have been able to even detect it in the death numbers after it ran its course (he has since walked that back).

Even the other day after his serology preprint he was saying it doesn't seem to have a higher chance of killing you than seasonal flu for each person infected: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwPqmLoZA4s&t=1h9m50s

And he claims the WHO said 3.4% of people who get infected would die:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwPqmLoZA4s&t=12m54s

But they actually said that was the case fatality rate at the time. Their actual quote was:

> Globally, about 3.4% of reported COVID-19 cases have died

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

#170

Post by fyp »

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…

Even with worst-case scenario of bias, this is still extremely good news. My worry was always with super spreaders who refuse to isolate but the data is suggesting that those spreaders will still soon achieve herd immunity among themselves. As long as the rest of the society behaves we will still hit zero cases relatively quickly.

(which wasn't always clear to me before since I initially predicted that this will take years to work out)

Post reply on HN