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

451–460 of 679 posts

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

#451

Post by wtvanhest »

TheBlight wrote: post #348
aazaa wrote: post #317

> 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…

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

Should be re-written as:

"Preliminary test results suggest 21% of of people approached in a crowded grocery store and who would agree to give blood have Covid antibodies"

All of these tests suffer the same sample bias, and that sample bias is massive.

People who are already in a grocery store (risky behavior), who are willing to give a blood sample (believes they may have been previously exposed) are not the same as people who are leaving their house only for very limited purposes and ordering food online.

If we assume that the % of people shopping in grocery stores and willing to take the test are in risk group A, and the people not shopping are in risk group B. We can run the following quick analysis.

First, assume risk group A is 5 times as likely to have had COVID than Risk group B (but plug any assumption in there necessary)

Then assume that risk group A is only 10% of the population, then rerun the numbers as follows:

For every 100 people in risk group A who tested, 21 were positive.

Risk group A is 100 people, and risk group B is 900.

Risk group A's 100 were 21 prior positive. Risk group B's 900 could be estimated that 4.2 people per 100 were positive, so in total of the 900 people 37.8 were positive.

21+37.8 = 59 people of 1000, or 5.8%.

Plug any numbers you want in the analysis, but the assumptions drive huge variability in the % of New Yorkers infected. Without a less biased sample, we really don't know much other than that way less than 21% of New Yorkers have anti-bodies.

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

#452

Post by dboreham »

mlyle wrote: post #429
slg wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I skimmed through that so please point it out if I missed it, but the numbers don't seem to account for comorbidities. The question was whether COVID-19 is more dangerous than the flu to healthy young people not all young people.

Just because you've not heard about it, doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Seemingly healthy young people die from the flu each year. Since Feb 1, 204 people from 15-34 have been confirmed to have died from COVID-19 in the US. 162 people from age 15-34 have been confirmed to have died from influenza in the same period. I don't think you'll find either statistic broken down by comorbidities.

That's pretty bad considering only perhaps 5% of the population has been penetrated with covid-19 vs 100% for the flu. Assuming a 70% eventual population infection rate, using your data we should expect to see around 2900 deaths in that age cohort. Annualized flu numbers would be around 500. So covid-19 by your data is 6x more fatal.

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

#453

Post by slg »

__blockcipher__ wrote: post #439
slg wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with some of what you said here, but there is one specific point I want to disagree with. All the projections for unemployment related deaths are based on society functioning as it previously did. I think many of the people who are suggesting we are in for long term isolation are also suggesting a much bigger increase in the social safety net to help people through these difficult times.

Right, but I think some of that suicide rate comes from the lack of "purpose" (it's silly that we rely on our jobs for purpose but we really do), or more broadly the desynchronization of one's internal schedule that many of us have experienced (which leads to worse sleep and therefore higher mortality). I also think that given we know about the level of competence of our government, it will be very difficult for "rea…

I will grant you the lack of purpose being a motivator for suicide, but none of us know how that would transpire during a global pandemic. I know there is debate over the specifics over Maslow's hierarchy of needs nowadays, but generally speaking I think a lot of us will focus less on these internal issues in times of external danger.

Also if we are going to use government incompetency as an argument here. I would throw it right back at you and say I have little faith in the government implementing a reopening plan that doesn't either kill people or damage the economy long term.

Lastly it is a false dichotomy to present a choice between protecting people from COVID-19 or protecting the economy. If we refuse to do the latter, we are going to ruin the economy anyway. Hundreds of thousands of people dying would certainly put a damper on demand. And while there are certainly people protesting about reopening sooner, I don't think think movie theaters would be selling out if they opened tomorrow.

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

#454

Post by mlyle »

slg wrote: post #447
mlyle wrote: post #429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because you've not heard about it, doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Seemingly healthy young people die from the flu each year. Since Feb 1, 204 people from 15-34 have been confirmed to have died from COVID-19 in the US. 162 people from age 15-34 have been confirmed to have died from influenza in the same period. I don't think you'll find either statistic broken down by comorbidities.

You mind sharing the source on those numbers because the total deaths is somewhat meaningless without the number of infections which I imagine is much higher for the flu? Even those absolute numbers show total deaths being just over 25% higher for COVID-19 than the flu.

Table 2: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/index.htm

The statement you differed with is "The third option is, when you take into account that it's approximately as bad as the flu for folks under 40," You're ignoring data in order to make a wishy-washy statement that it must be much worse for people under 40 based on anecdotes you hear.

I don't agree flu infections were higher for those 2 months, either. Distancing has been spectacularly effective against influenza, since it has a lower Rt in the absence of controls. Under 1% of influenza surveillance tests are positive right now, which is a level usually only seen in the middle of summer.

Our best guess for overall infection fatality rate is about 0.3%, double or 3x influenza (because of the very high death rate in the elderly), but COVID-19 deaths overall have been 4x influenza in that time period, indicating that COVID-19 prevalence is higher.

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

#455

Post by downerending »

dragonwriter wrote: post #271
izend wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Making it the worse pandemic in decades but no where near the Spanish Flu.

Well, sure, but the “Spanish” flu (only called that because Spain is the first country severely hit that didn't lie and cover it up because of WWI) was accelerated by both the physical conditions created by WWI and the fact that covering it up to avoid revealing weakness to wartime opponents hampered response in many early-hit countries and obstructed information flow. It's also nowhere near the HIV/AIDS global epide…

> only called that because...

Also worth noting that a huge number of names in biology are quite arbitrary and/or accidents of history.

Or tech, for that matter. Fewer and fewer "hard disks" involve any actual disk, and more non-floppy floppy disks were made than actual floppy ones. Etc.

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

#456

Post by LandR »

mrb wrote: post #183

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…

I feel a blanket IFR figure isn't all that helpful.

Won't there be a high level of age stratification in there. Over 60, death rate will be way higher than if you are younger and probably close to zero under 20.

It seems better if we could have a risk per age group to see who can go back to a somewhat normal life and protect the most vulnerable.

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

#457

Post by mlyle »

dboreham wrote: post #452
mlyle wrote: post #429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because you've not heard about it, doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Seemingly healthy young people die from the flu each year. Since Feb 1, 204 people from 15-34 have been confirmed to have died from COVID-19 in the US. 162 people from age 15-34 have been confirmed to have died from influenza in the same period. I don't think you'll find either statistic broken down by comorbidities.

That's pretty bad considering only perhaps 5% of the population has been penetrated with covid-19 vs 100% for the flu. Assuming a 70% eventual population infection rate, using your data we should expect to see around 2900 deaths in that age cohort. Annualized flu numbers would be around 500. So covid-19 by your data is 6x more fatal.

100% of the population was not "penetrated" with the flu between February 1 and now. Evidence implies a similar proportion of the population was "penetrated" with COVID-19 and the flu in that time. This implies a similar death rate for COVID-19 and influenza in those age groups, as the poster said.

Indeed, influenza has been greatly impacted by distancing. The surveillance numbers for influenza are lower than you'll ever see for this time of year.

I can't exclude it's twice as bad as the flu (or half as bad). But even those broadly agree with the poster's statement.

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

#458

Post by __blockcipher__ »

nostromo wrote: post #402
__blockcipher__ wrote: post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At this point people advocating the position you’re advocating for are in a state of denial (this is my opinion, not a matter of fact, obviously). Your assumption is that we can effectively prevent the majority of the nation from exposure via lockdown. Not only does evidence seem to point against that, but when you do the math on mortality due to suicide and overdose it’s not clear that containment would even save mo…

> when you do the math on mortality due to suicide and overdose it’s not clear that containment would even save more lives in the long run. I'm waiting for people to do the analysis of mass unemployment from lockdown leading to people losing their healthcare, just in time for the pandemic to widen or return this summer or fall. You're exactly right to consider all of the externalities of our current approach.

I hadn't thought of it specifically in terms of our broken employer-based healthcare system. That's a really good point.

I quit my job Feb 7, before all this unfolded. And COBRA costs me $612.54 per month.

For the same reason I was able to quit my job, I will be totally fine. I have over 5 years of living expenses in liquid assets, so I will be fine.

But for someone who was living paycheck to paycheck and lost their job because it's not the type of job that can work from home, how the hell could they possible afford healthcare?

Along those lines, I do really think that part of the reason so many people don't see the harm in locking down for the next several months is because, like me, they work in the tech industry and really have not been affected by this as far as employment goes.

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

#459

Post by varenc »

CydeWeys wrote: post #433
TheBlight wrote: post #413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We don't have perfect studies and perfect data but calling these tests "bad" seems slightly unfair. They give us an imperfect but useful snapshot of what's going on. But thanks for the condescension. I'd expect nothing less on HN.

The study is dramatically over-sampling exactly the people who have the most potential exposure to COVID-19, and dramatically over-sampling the people who don't. This could easily be way off. It's not testing the people who aren't home at all, and it has a low chance of only testing the people who leave home rarely, only when strictly necessary. It's mainly finding the people who leave home a lot.

I think the overwhelming majority of people are visiting grocery stores to buy food. (Or have someone in their household doing it)

If the studied presume this then it makes more sense.

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

#460

Post by cycrutchfield »

luckylion wrote: post #186
cycrutchfield wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Are you suggesting the riots in the banlieus in France are done by "astroturf protestors"? And "flattening the curve" to buy time until we get a vaccine or a very successful treatment was literally in the comment I replied to. Not as in "we must lockdown until then", but as a goal we may reach if we continue with strict measures. It's fine to want that, we just have to be aware that it might not happen (or might not…

There are different mitigation options other than just heavy suppression via lockdown. Flattening the curve doesn't imply lockdown, for instance.
Post reply on HN