351–360 of 679 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The death rate of 0.5% falls right in the range of what modelers have been using, by the way. Not exactly very positive news.
Yeah, still 150,000 death toll if everybody gets infected. And this is not considering the permanent lung and other tissue damage that's getting reported from "recovered" patients.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One critique was that the segment of the population who would respond to the ad and actually test may be more likely to have experienced COVID-like symptoms.
Also people reported sharing the Santa Clara link with others who might want the test (due to having had symptoms). In principle you could have the same problem with this survey: call your buddy and say “come on down to Costco—they’re doing free antibody tests”. The obvious fix is to not tell people the results of their own tests. Not sure of the ethics/consequences of that approach.
At 21% it would be time to end the shutdown. EDIT: Read the comments below.
I'd think it'd be decided based upon the new cases and hospitalization and death rates, not an estimate of population with exposure.
Give all of that, it makes no sense to continue the shutdown considering how costly the shutdown is.
To those who think this is a question of saving lives, that's not so. At this point the disease will work its way through the population because there's no time to finish testing, producing, and distributing a vaccine, which means the only question is of managing the maximum load on the healthcare system. Moreover, many of the most vulnerable have been hit already, and those who haven't can be protected by measures far short of a shutdown.
No, at 21% it is most definitely time to stop the shutdown. (Note: not all the measures, just the shutdown.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
What? All of these numbers are inline with what experts have been saying and modeling for more than a month. We will be dealing with this for at least another year. We will cycle through policy to loosen up and close back down a little. In the best case for NYC they are 1/4th of the way to herd immunity in numbers. With the drop in transmissions, this might be 1/8th of the way in terms of time. There will be more dea…
With most endemic viruses, antibody incidence is somewhere around 30-50% I believe, but I haven't seen any modelling for what covid is expected to do specifically.
If this study is accurate, then 1.8 million NYC resident are infected. So 15 411 deaths (as of today, including 5 121 probable deaths) suggests COVID-19 has a fatality rate of MINIMUM 0.9% which is in line with previous estimates (between 0.5 and 1.6%) and this is MINIMUM 9 times more fatal than the flu (0.1%). Edited to add "MINIMUM", as there is a lag between case detection and death (I should have known better to…
Also, I don't the flu's fatality is calculated against every exposed to the flu but against everyone who gets sick with the flu. If the flu also 50% asymptomatic exposed individuals, that would know it's fatality rate down further for comparison's sake.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
For NY, assuming it’s evenly distributed, that would translate into 13.8% of 20 million = 2.8m symptomatic flu cases and 3,753 deaths.
COVID appears to be significantly more prevalent (roughly twice as prevalent in just 3 months as flu gets all year despite incredible efforts), and roughly 2-3x as fatal.
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…
At 21% it would be time to end the shutdown. EDIT: Read the comments below.
That doesn't make sense to me. I would think you'd want to get to the point where you've reached the carrying capacity, so that "overshoot" of the equilibrium doesn't result.
> In his press conference today, Governor Cuomo revealed the preliminary results of a first-phase antibody test that surveyed 3,000 New Yorkers over two days in 19 counties at 40 locations that included grocery and big-box stores. The sample suggests that 13.9% of New York State residents have the antibodies, meaning they had the virus at one point and recovered. Of the regions tested–Long Island, NYC, Westchester/Ro…
Sure all of these studies are potentially flawed but they're all generally pointing in the same direction. There are many more infections than we know about and the CFR is not anywhere close to the actual IFR. NYC is an outlier with a 21% infection estimate but for the rest of NY (outside NYC metro/Westchester/LI) the estimate is 3.6%. Santa Clara estimate was 3%. LA County estimate was 4%. Seems like a trend is deve…
That is the optimistic takeaway.
The pessimistic takeaway is that even the hardest hit areas are nowhere near herd immunity levels and that we are either going to be isolating until a vaccine is created or we can expect to see a lot more death once nonessential people are forced back to work.