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

Post by treis » Thu, Apr 23, 2020, 8:53 PM UTC

Slartie wrote: post #290

treis wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

> As an example, 90% of patients that go on ventilators still die. That’s in New York, and probably because they only put the really worst cases on ventilators because there weren’t enough ventilators. In Germany, that number of deaths on ventilators is at around 30%. This shows that this quota is entirely useless to make your argument, and that maybe you should curb your intuition a bit when it comes to estimating p…

Post by esoterica » Thu, Apr 23, 2020, 8:55 PM UTC

cdash wrote: post #299

esoterica wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

0.18% of the entire NYC population is already dead from the coronavirus and by the time this is over the number will probably reach or exceed 0.3%. If you want the whole country to get herd immunity you will probably see similar mortality rates across the country. 0.3% of the US population is 1 million people. How have the models been proven to be "pessimistic by orders of magnitude?

Just so you know, around 3 million people die in the US every year, many of the million people you expect to die would have ended up being counted in that 3 million background statistic. More importantly, herd immunity is the ONLY solution on the table right now, the lockdown is not about stopping the virus in its tracks. It is about spreading it out over a period of time.

Post by CyberDildonics » Thu, Apr 23, 2020, 8:56 PM UTC

karagenit wrote: post #261

alkibiades wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

going 7 times doesn’t actually increase the likelihood 7x but your point still stands that they would be far more likely to get it

Well, sort of. The increase in likelihood of being sampled due to going to the store N times more than the average person is a function of N and P (the probability of being sampled in any given trip) such that f(N, P): (1 - ((1-P)^N)) / P For a large P you're right, but as P gets very small (let's say that in any given trip you have a 0.01% chance of being sampled) then the increase in likelihood of being sampled app…

Post by qqqwerty » Thu, Apr 23, 2020, 8:58 PM UTC

austingulati wrote: post #221

ineedasername wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Wouldn't the ability to refuse taking the test introduce bias? i.e. the 10% that do take it still may not be representative of the entire population. Likely better than the grocery store sample, but still not ideal

Post by glofish » Thu, Apr 23, 2020, 8:59 PM UTC

Jovbrev wrote: post #300

glofish wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

one problem with all these projections is that they all assume everyone is the same and that it is just a matter of chance. Not true in the least bit. those most susceptible get the disease first, those most sensitive die first - I believe the ratios will not stay the same, but continuously tick downwards

On the other part, those who are more vulnerable are more aware, and are implementing more measures in their daily living, hence they are not getting infected as much, currently. Hope it stays that way.