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

241–250 of 679 posts

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

#241

Post by taeric »

cma wrote: post #211
taeric wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

We're looking at per capita rates though so doesn't matter if they have more of something in absolute terms.

Could. If the agitating factor to severe cases is car exhaust, as an example. There are usually tipping points to that kind of thing.

Look, I agree that I don't know. Just trying to get that uncertainty in the counter claims, as well.

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

#242

Post by ericb »

easytiger wrote: post #189
cryoshon wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

we have absolutely no clue regarding the long-term impacts of exposure to this virus for asymptomatic people or otherwise. we cannot gamble with our future so carelessly on the basis of preliminary data. here is a vignette to explain why. once someone is infected with HIV, most people experience flu-like symptoms for a week or two which then resolve either with or without treatment. in some people, the virus is clear…

> hasn't given us any indication of similar activity. but we know so very little that we can't take the risk There's little reason to believe it's significantly different to any other Coronavirus. Speculating that's it's suddenly going to be aids++ is pointless scaremongering. The main* reason it was a "big deal" was the lack of common immunity thus leading to potentially rapid spread. Deaths in the vulnerable from t…

I don't think necessarily aids++, but speculating about long term effects is not pointless, or unreasonable.

https://www.thestar.com/life/health_wellness/2010/09/02/sars...

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

#243

Post by jsnell »

glofish wrote: post #210
ferzul wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

0.1% is the flu cfr. 0.6ish% seems to be the corona ifr. these are comparing chalk and cheese. how many people who get the flu never rock up to a doctor? the ifr for flu is closer to 0.01%. the worst case scenarios are disproven it is true - but so is the idea that it's just a flu. let us be grateful this trial run of a deadly global pandemic was only moderately bad.

first you say 0.1% is the CFR for flu then, in the same sentence you claim that it is probably closer to 0.01% because people don't go to doctors with the flu. Are you arguing that after all this time we still don't know what the actual CFR for flu is? And that the reported CFR is a gross overestimation? - I find that hard to believe. To me, this feels that once this disease hits the reported flu numbers people start…

Oh, wait. You don't understand that the CFR and IFR are not the same thing? That explains a lot. I thought you were just being disingenous when comparing the early CFR statistics to the current IFR estimates.

The CFR is, by definition, computed from known cases. It's thus trivial to determine exactly: just divide the confirmed deaths by confirmed cases. So we definitely know the CFR of flu. The problem is, of coures, that it's highly likely to be an over-estimate.

On the other hand, the IFR is hard to determine, since we don't know which cases we missed, nor whether the unresolved cases will end up living or dying. Which is why all we have is estimates.

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

#244

Post by JetSetWilly »

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…

In the other direction, people who are sick or have recently been sick may well isolate and avoid going to the grocery store, dragging the detection rate back down.

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

#245

Post by robocat »

chasd00 wrote: post #146
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?

I would be very sceptical about any models produced in the US, since the issue is so partisan, and one can tweak variables to prove whatever outcome one wants from a model.

I think the lost life-years of economic hardship could easily outweigh the lost life-years of Covid deaths. That is because economic hardship affects younger people, while Covid deaths primarily affect people with not many years left to live. But there are many other external costs (social costs if your grandma dies) and economic benefits to deaths (lower pension payments, home availability?).

However, given current information, a lockdown for weeks to months seems to make sense, since the consensus is that economic collapse is not yet immanent, and that steps can be taken to help keep the economy spinning when lockdown restrictions start to be relaxed.

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

#246

Post by cozzyd »

grandmczeb wrote: post #120
cozzyd wrote: post #16

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-…

It’s not clear what kind of antibodies they’re testing for, but it can take up to 4 weeks after infection to develop detectable levels of antibodies. It takes on average ~3 weeks after infection to die. There needs to be some time lag adjustment in your calculation, which would likely result in a lower IFR. IMO the two effects probably about cancel each other out and we’re looking at <1% IFR for the population tested…

I guess I would assume they would have corrected for any time-lag in the result, but I have not read the study in detail

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

#247

Post by taeric »

grandmczeb wrote: post #238
taeric wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fair. My entry to this thread should have begun with a question mark. I thought the point of different transmission methods, as frames, was referring to potential differences in viral load.

Rereading your first comment, I think you might be thinking of infection dose. Viral load is the amount of virus present in a patient. Infection dose is the amount you're exposed to.

So, I was indeed mixing those up. I think most of the following points stand?

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

#248

Post by wbl »

fyp wrote: post #170
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…

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…

Superspreaders aren't connected to each other.

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

#249

Post by tricolon »

lukeinkster wrote: post #173
cm2187 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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]…

The death rate of those requiring ventilation in NYC is closer to 88% https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2765184

Outside the context of this virus, for adult men, the survival rate one year after mechanical ventilation might be 30 percent: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8404197/

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

#250

Post by easytiger »

ericb wrote: post #242
easytiger wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> hasn't given us any indication of similar activity. but we know so very little that we can't take the risk There's little reason to believe it's significantly different to any other Coronavirus. Speculating that's it's suddenly going to be aids++ is pointless scaremongering. The main* reason it was a "big deal" was the lack of common immunity thus leading to potentially rapid spread. Deaths in the vulnerable from t…

I don't think necessarily aids++, but speculating about long term effects is not pointless, or unreasonable. https://www.thestar.com/life/health_wellness/2010/09/02/sars...

As with any viral pneumonia
Post reply on HN