Live data from Hacker News

Antibody tests show what parts of NYC were hit hardest

nytimes.com

41–50 of 72 posts

Re: Antibody tests show what parts of NYC were hit hardest

#41
post #4

Its kind of ironic that the neighborhood is called Corona...

Irony is a quality of communication, not of reality. God doesn't make us sick in order to converse.

The expression cosmic irony or "irony of fate" stems from the notion that the gods (or the Fates) are amusing themselves by toying with the minds of mortals with deliberate ironic intent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony#Cosmic_irony_(irony_of_f...

Re: Antibody tests show what parts of NYC were hit hardest

#42
post #38

27% of people have antibodies, thus 2.4 million were infected. 23k deaths, thus a 1% mortality rate. I guess this the final nail in the "this is just a flu" .

Agree completely that this is far more dangerous and deadly than the flu (especially as a New Yorker who knows multiple people who have died from this disease). That being said, there is some selection bias in these results as those who were tested were much more likely to have been infected. These tests were not done in randomly selected people. Most who get tested have reason to believe they were infected (or were at high risk for having been infected). The fact that the 27% of the group of high risk people who chose to get tested showed they had the disease doesn't mean that 27% of all New Yorkers had the disease.

Re: Antibody tests show what parts of NYC were hit hardest

#43
post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the antibodies might not last for more than three or four months He says a few seconds into your timestamp. Thank you for trying to soothe my thoughts. But now I'm even more concerned. Wouldn't that render a vaccine pretty useless if it's gone after 4 months?

Antibodies simply teach memory cells, which is what gives you the secondary (long-lasting) immune response. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_B_cell Still, it's an absolutely brutal way to handle the virus and it's accepting deaths on the order of large wars.

> Still, it's an absolutely brutal way to handle the virus and it's accepting deaths on the order of large wars.

So just like the last million years of human history?

Re: Antibody tests show what parts of NYC were hit hardest

#44
post #38

27% of people have antibodies, thus 2.4 million were infected. 23k deaths, thus a 1% mortality rate. I guess this the final nail in the "this is just a flu" .

>> 27% of people have antibodies, thus 2.4 million were infected. The immune system isn't just about antibodies. having antibodies, for this disease, means you were exposed relatively recently. People who had the disease months ago are now showing a lack of antibodies. That doesn't mean that their immune system isn't primed for this disease, just that they currently do not display antibodies in their bloodstream. Thu…

> Thus it is likely many more than 2.4million americans have been infected/exposed, potentially drawing down the death rate well below 1%.

The parent poster is not saying 2.4 million Americans were infected. The poster is saying 2.4 million New Yorkers were infected.

Re: Antibody tests show what parts of NYC were hit hardest

#45
post #38

27% of people have antibodies, thus 2.4 million were infected. 23k deaths, thus a 1% mortality rate. I guess this the final nail in the "this is just a flu" .

Agree completely that this is far more dangerous and deadly than the flu (especially as a New Yorker who knows multiple people who have died from this disease). That being said, there is some selection bias in these results as those who were tested were much more likely to have been infected. These tests were not done in randomly selected people. Most who get tested have reason to believe they were infected (or were…

Mortality is also highly age dependent. It mostly reflects that the virus ripped through care facilities since nobody isolated them in time.

Re: Antibody tests show what parts of NYC were hit hardest

#47
post #38

27% of people have antibodies, thus 2.4 million were infected. 23k deaths, thus a 1% mortality rate. I guess this the final nail in the "this is just a flu" .

For a good percentage of the population it is about as deadly as the flu though, perhaps even less. For a smaller percentage of people it’s far more deadly than the flu.

I still think we could have gotten through this quicker if we didn’t lock down the young and healthy, while taking extra care to keep at risk populations safe.

Re: Antibody tests show what parts of NYC were hit hardest

#48
post #47
post #38

27% of people have antibodies, thus 2.4 million were infected. 23k deaths, thus a 1% mortality rate. I guess this the final nail in the "this is just a flu" .

For a good percentage of the population it is about as deadly as the flu though, perhaps even less. For a smaller percentage of people it’s far more deadly than the flu. I still think we could have gotten through this quicker if we didn’t lock down the young and healthy, while taking extra care to keep at risk populations safe.

Mortality rates for flu are correlated with very similar risk factors as COVID-19 and COVID is more deadly by an order of magnitude overall. Also, it is now becoming clearer that children are just as susceptible to adults and can harbor substantial infections and be highly contagious even without symptoms.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/08/20/children-co...

Re: Antibody tests show what parts of NYC were hit hardest

#49
post #38

27% of people have antibodies, thus 2.4 million were infected. 23k deaths, thus a 1% mortality rate. I guess this the final nail in the "this is just a flu" .

Agree completely that this is far more dangerous and deadly than the flu (especially as a New Yorker who knows multiple people who have died from this disease). That being said, there is some selection bias in these results as those who were tested were much more likely to have been infected. These tests were not done in randomly selected people. Most who get tested have reason to believe they were infected (or were…

You are right, I missed that the number of tests was ~1 million, no way that was randon testing.

So, probably the mortality rate is higher. I wonder if there is any bayesian tricks to estimate the infection range given 1/8 people got tested, regardless of selection bias.

edit: actually the overall deatheate could be lower, because we know the number of deaths, but not the exact number of infected -- if overall the infection rate is lower then 27%, the deathrate is lower than 1%.

Re: Antibody tests show what parts of NYC were hit hardest

#50
post #38

27% of people have antibodies, thus 2.4 million were infected. 23k deaths, thus a 1% mortality rate. I guess this the final nail in the "this is just a flu" .

If 27% of the NYC population have antibodies, and half of people infected don't test positive for antibodies (too long after infection, mild infection that was defeated without antibodies, etc), then NYC is at or near herd immunity already.

There's a lot of studies saying that antibodies go below detectable levels within 2-3 months, even though that doesn't seem to mean that these people are no longer immune.

Post reply on HN