13.9%

7,646 Views | 54 Replies | Last: 4 yr ago by nukeaggie2000
SMM48
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:24a, 4/23/20
AG
NY antibody study estimates 13.9% of residents have had the coronavirus, Cuomo

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/23/new-york-antibody-study-estimates-13point9percent-of-residents-have-had-the-coronavirus-cuomo-says.html?
Reply Quote
9
1 edit
chimpanzee
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to SMM48 • 11:26a, 4/23/20
SteveMedina said:
NY antibody study estimates 13.9% of residents have had the coronavirus, Cuomo


That's a lot of freaking people.
Reply Quote
12
SMM48
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to chimpanzee • 11:26a, 4/23/20
AG
Yeah it is.
Reply Quote
John J 01
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:37a, 4/23/20
AG
If true, that means 2,703,550 infected resulting in a current CFR of 0.77% (20,792 deceased per Worldometers). Hoping the actual number is higher still.
Reply Quote
5
KidDoc
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:38a, 4/23/20
AG
That is almost exactly what the data from Spain has been showing (15%). Anyone able to find the actual data? Like what test was used, who was tested, etc.

No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Reply Quote
6
HotardAg07
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:38a, 4/23/20
AG
Whereas the Santa Clara test found that 2-3% of those tested positive in a test where where is up to a 2-3% false positive rate (effectively saying that all positives could have been false), this kind of data from NY would be more valuable due to the higher overall infection rate, since at a minimum it would still be 11%.

If 2.7MM NY'ers have the virus and 20,700 have died from it, that would be a 0.76% mortality rate, which is in the 0.5% - 1.0% range of what docs like Infection Ag 11 have been saying.

It's also 10x more cases than what is confirmed, which is definitely plausible considering the limits on testing and asymptomatic rates.
Reply Quote
12
KidDoc
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:40a, 4/23/20
AG
And just to be "that guy" I would not be surprised at all if many of these are false positives due to cross reaction with common Coronavirus.

I hope I am wrong!
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Reply Quote
14
cone
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to John J 01 • 11:42a, 4/23/20
AG
would imply a 3% hospitalization rate based on NYC stats (younger population there though)
Reply Quote
4
BlackGoldAg2011
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:43a, 4/23/20
AG
using just NYC data, the reported antibody prevalence was 21.2%, which would put CFR in the range of 0.5%-0.6%
Sorry, was looking at the wrong data set. Just using NYC data here is the look:

so 0.9% using 21.2% infected
or 1.7% if the rate is lowered due to 11.2% antibody prevalence to account for an assumed lower specificity (90%) of this test. (There were 1290 test in NYC so 21.2% positive would be 274 positive results and a 90% specificity means as many as 145 false positives)
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
SMM48
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to KidDoc • 11:43a, 4/23/20
AG
Dang it. Haha.

Thanks for that info
Reply Quote
2
HotardAg07
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:58a, 4/23/20
AG
Reply Quote
2
AggieAuditor
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to KidDoc • 12:00p, 4/23/20
AG
KidDoc said:
And just to be "that guy" I would not be surprised at all if many of these are false positives due to cross reaction with common Coronavirus.

I hope I am wrong!
Reply Quote
7
DTP02
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:05p, 4/23/20
AG
A few thoughts:

- we need to see whether this was from the Chinese test which is of questionable utility

- I'm not sure that the caveat that Cuomo throws in there about the infected possibly being oversampled makes sense. People who are symptomatic or who've recently been symptomatic are going to be significantly less likely to be out and about.

- Surely, since they already went to the trouble of doing a somewhat randomized sample, they asked those tested whether they had experienced symptoms, right? That would be very valuable info as well, and is kind of obvious, but I see no mention of it. Surely they didn't miss that opportunity, right?
Reply Quote
1
BlackGoldAg2011
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:19p, 4/23/20
AG
Has anyone been able to find the sensitivity and specificity of this test? That would be a great piece of info to have to really narrow in the range of true cases and CFR.
Reply Quote
2
Sq 17
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:23p, 4/23/20
presuming there is not a bunch of false negatives , the idea of herd immunity is a long way off and comes with a large death toll
Reply Quote
9
Aggie95
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sq 17 • 12:26p, 4/23/20
AG
Sq 17 said:
presuming there is not a bunch of false negatives , the idea of herd immunity is a long way off and comes with a large death toll
what is a large death toll? If we started today with all the information we have now, how many of the 40,000+ deaths could have been saved? That is not to say we just hope for herd immunity, but we know a lot more about this virus today than we did when the first US case hit.
Reply Quote
1 edit
oragator
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:28p, 4/23/20
Yeah again just like Stanford it's one study in a much broader canvas of info.
But a .75 mortality rate also wouldn't take into account those that have the virus and haven't shown symptoms yet (depending on how they set the antibody levels in the test), and those already accounted for as infected who will later pass away. And there still the question of whether it's picking up other previous viruses, i.e., false positives.

So this could still be low. It could also be that NY has a higher death rate for some reason like viral load per exposure given the close contact there, or other demographic factors which would sway the numbers the other way.

So again, one more data point, but not the end all. I have said all along I think it's a few tenths either above or below 1 or so. But we will see.
Reply Quote
Complete Idiot
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:31p, 4/23/20
Havent seen anyone note they tested people at grocery stores and shopping locations - people who appear to be ok being out and about. Did not test anyone who had been staying home ordering everything delivered. Just to point out they tested a population who may have a higher incident rate than others.

But it wasn't clear if they tested people out and about or did the testing at those locations but got a wide variety of randomized people to show up for testing.

Regardless of all - I love every antibody study, warts and all. Progress.
Reply Quote
1
Keegan99
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:36p, 4/23/20
AG
Would need to get in to the numbers, but the substantial variance between NYC and the rest of the state leads one to think that false positives likely aren't driving this.
Reply Quote
15
slacker00
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:38p, 4/23/20
AG
Speaking to false positives due to cross sensitivities, wouldn't that show up about equally across the city vs upstate areas rather than the drastic difference that we see? I'd expect the difference in magnitude of these areas would be relatively accurate.
Reply Quote
2
slacker00
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Keegan99 • 12:38p, 4/23/20
AG
too slow....
Reply Quote
agforlife97
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:44p, 4/23/20
AG
And even with this many cases, the hospital system, while strained, was not overwhelmed in NYC. The hospital ship and overflow facilities were barely even used. That was the justification for the massive lockdown, the fear that the hospital systems in the US would be overwhelmed. It's clear that that won't happen in most places in the US at this point. In fact the hostpital systems are being strained to the breaking point for lack of patients.

This disease also ravages elderly people. The death rate for 75+ is pretty darn high. But the death rate for people under 60 for sure is probably not worse than seasonal flu, and is probably overall less dangerous, as seasonal flu can and does kill young children. The overall death rate from C-19 will probably be 0.3-0.6%.
Reply Quote
9
ETFan
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to agforlife97 • 12:48p, 4/23/20
agforlife97 said:
And even with this many cases, the hospital system, while strained, was not overwhelmed in NYC. The hospital ship and overflow facilities were barely even used. That was the justification for the massive lockdown, the fear that the hospital systems in the US would be overwhelmed. It's clear that that won't happen in most places in the US at this point. In fact the hostpital systems are being strained to the breaking point for lack of patients.

This disease also ravages elderly people. The death rate for 75+ is pretty darn high. But the death rate for people under 60 for sure is probably not worse than seasonal flu, and is probably overall less dangerous, as seasonal flu can and does kill young children. The overall death rate from C-19 will probably be 0.3-0.6%.
Why do think that is?
Reply Quote
4
Complete Idiot
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to agforlife97 • 12:53p, 4/23/20
agforlife97 said:


But the death rate for people under 60 for sure is probably not worse than seasonal flu, and is probably overall less dangerous, as seasonal flu can and does kill young children.
From another thread, and I haven't personally confirmed the numbers

Reply Quote
Fitch
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:54p, 4/23/20
AG
Really interesting data point to be sure but man that bias in the population to NYC samples is dragging up the distribution. Makes it hard to extrapolate that out nationwide.
Reply Quote
1 edit
SkiMo
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to ETFan • 1:03p, 4/23/20
AG
ETFan said:
agforlife97 said:
And even with this many cases, the hospital system, while strained, was not overwhelmed in NYC. The hospital ship and overflow facilities were barely even used. That was the justification for the massive lockdown, the fear that the hospital systems in the US would be overwhelmed. It's clear that that won't happen in most places in the US at this point. In fact the hostpital systems are being strained to the breaking point for lack of patients.

This disease also ravages elderly people. The death rate for 75+ is pretty darn high. But the death rate for people under 60 for sure is probably not worse than seasonal flu, and is probably overall less dangerous, as seasonal flu can and does kill young children. The overall death rate from C-19 will probably be 0.3-0.6%.
Why do think that is?
Exactly. That was the entire point of the nationwide quarantine. And as predicted then, people would come out and say, "See! It wasn't that bad".
Reply Quote
6
cone
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:07p, 4/23/20
AG
armed with this array of data with some many positives, what's the IFR of people under 60 with/without commodities?

is it better or worse than dying in a car crash or dying of cancer?

and what was the hospitalization rate?
Reply Quote
DTP02
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to SkiMo • 1:13p, 4/23/20
AG
SkiMo said:
ETFan said:
agforlife97 said:
And even with this many cases, the hospital system, while strained, was not overwhelmed in NYC. The hospital ship and overflow facilities were barely even used. That was the justification for the massive lockdown, the fear that the hospital systems in the US would be overwhelmed. It's clear that that won't happen in most places in the US at this point. In fact the hostpital systems are being strained to the breaking point for lack of patients.

This disease also ravages elderly people. The death rate for 75+ is pretty darn high. But the death rate for people under 60 for sure is probably not worse than seasonal flu, and is probably overall less dangerous, as seasonal flu can and does kill young children. The overall death rate from C-19 will probably be 0.3-0.6%.
Why do think that is?
Exactly. That was the entire point of the nationwide quarantine. And as predicted then, people would come out and say, "See! It wasn't that bad".


Before you get to feeling too superior to "those people," I should point out that most of those people would probably agree that NYC (and a few other places as well) probably should have been on a strict lockdown.

I also think it's fair to say that if NYC hadn't been so slow to implement precautions, the impetus for the rest of the country to do the same wouldn't have been nearly as strong. In retrospect, it's pretty clear that much of the country could have been significantly less restrictive and still kept their healthcare systems from overloading.
Reply Quote
7
cone
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:13p, 4/23/20
AG
if this is lasting immunity, then this is good news for hospitals

the hospitalization rate to get to +10% of the population infected was much much less than anticipated
Reply Quote
2
Cancelled
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to cone • 1:19p, 4/23/20
AG
If these figures hold up as true, the CFR for healthily people under 40 is probably less of a chance being eaten by a shark in a lake.
Reply Quote
11
cone
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Cancelled • 1:29p, 4/23/20
AG
it's always been about the hospitals and exhaustion of the HC infrastructure and individuals then having to go to get treatment at exhausted hospitals

if the hospitalization rate is in the low single digits, then this becomes a nuisance and a significant change to the way we live and work, but less of an existential threat

it would break a lot of the paranoia
Reply Quote
3
Cancelled
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to cone • 1:56p, 4/23/20
AG
Unfortunately, I do not believe the majority of Americans understand the purpose of flattening the curve. I'd say the vast majority of them believe that we are waiting out the virus.
Reply Quote
17
Squadron7
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Cancelled • 2:04p, 4/23/20
AG
queso1 said:
Unfortunately, I do not believe the majority of Americans understand the purpose of flattening the curve. I'd say the vast majority of them believe that we are waiting out the virus.

And they think food comes from the grocery store, gas comes from the gas station, and HVAC comes from the utility company.
Reply Quote
3
BlackGoldAg2011
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Cancelled • 2:09p, 4/23/20
AG
queso1 said:
If these figures hold up as true, the CFR for healthily people under 40 is probably less of a chance being eaten by a shark in a lake.
since you are making a quantifiable claim, would you mind providing what the percentages are for each of those scenarios? I assume you actually did some level of work to ballpark them before making such a statement...
Reply Quote
oragator
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:23p, 4/23/20
I actually looked up shark deaths per year in the US, there were 8 in the last decade, so one very 1.2 years. rough odds of 400 million to one in any given year that you will die by shark attack. Maybe 5 or 6 million to 1 in your lifetime, give or take.
As far as lakes go, I think we're pretty safe. Though there have been attacks in rivers, which seems weird, but true,
Reply Quote
Page 1 of 2 ▼
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.