21% of Those Tested in N.Y.C. Had Virus Antibodies

Not if they are full of people. That’s my beef with cities.

 

Not really, because NY came very early.
If you look at Washington you can see it since they had 2 peaks.
If you look at percent positives vs deaths (nation wide) that number has remained about the same at 117 per percent positive.

 

what was the % of Americans that died on 9-11 - this is like a couple 9-11's a week

 

But everyone had some cases early. And less of them died than in NY. Everyone was short of tests early.

If we had more tests everywhere else we would have had more confirmed cases elsewhere as well.

 

Sure, but not everyone was seeded the same.

 

so about 21% herd immunity, a ways to go, we need that vaccine

 

But that doesn’t matter if we are talking about true IFR. I’m talking about heterogeneity of survival rates. For instance, 80 year olds in Italy were far more likely to die of C19 than 80 year olds in China. I’m interested in why being a resident of NY (NYC) specifically made you more likely to die if infected, not how likely one is to be infected based on geographic location.

 

Another study.
To determine the infection fatality rate in Arizona, we divided the percentage of the state’s population who had died from Covid-19 as of July 30, 2020, by the 12.9% of the population that was infected based on antibody testing between July 20 and July 26, 2020. Antibody testing captures the total percentage of the population that had been infected with Covid-19 from the beginning of the outbreak. We then calculated and applied a standard correction factor for the delay between case diagnosis and death. This yielded an infection fatality rate of 0.63%, which is not significantly different from the CDC’s best estimate of 0.65% for the U.S. in the Spring of 2020.

https://www.statnews.com/2020/08/24/infection-fatality-rate-shows-covid-19-isnt-getting-less-deadly/

Anyway. I'm not sure there is a good way to measure it.
Deaths per million eliminates the testing variation but introduces the time from the outbreak and mitigation factors.

 

You are such a drama queen.

How many died on the highways yesterday?

 

In a courtroom, that's called depraved indifference.

 

How many would have died without seat belts?

 

Well there have been some studies that pinpoint reasons people are more likely to die in one place than another.

Link:https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/45/eabd4049

A few of those metrics would separate NYC from where I live.

And the information you provided on serological testing on NY and CT clearly shows you were more likely to die if infected in CT than even NY. If their data was sound.

Back to my original point of it being a mistake to use death rates of any state in March to predict how many would die in an effort to achieve herd immunity. Hospitalized patients were 3 times more likely to die in March as in August by most studies.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ma...-die-in-march-vs-august-heres-why-11604502372

 

there are probably thousands of reasons one place may have higher rates than another. It's a problem for super computers.
The one that comes to mind refers to your statement about China not having as high a death rate in those over 80 yea.
China has very few nursing homes where the US (and NY) has a huge problem.

Same problem here.
Could it be Conn. is a couple years older or maybe twice the population density?

Lets face it forecasts are forecasts.
But having said that, I'm not sure I'm convinced your link is total correct.
While I'm sure we have gotten better at treating the disease, my take is the problem early was that the hospitals were overwhelmed. I base this primarily on two things I have been tracking.
On is that when you plot percent positives vs deaths the number has remained pretty constant at about 117 deaths per percent positive.


The second revolves around hospitalizations per percent positive.
Now here I think it can be one of two things.
1- early we just didn't have room.
2- we are putting people in the hospital that aren't as sick now.

 

Yes I believe there are many reasons. And Chinese taking care of their elderly at home is a good point.

I don’t know much about CT but I highly doubt it has a higher pop. density than NY, especially NYC. I could be wrong.

Looks to me like it wasn’t very constant. They were reversed in July and have converged now. I suppose it’s possible some hospitals were overwhelmed. But I haven’t seen real evidence of that. I heard the media moan about it but no proof. NYC never used field hospitals or naval ships. Just sent convalescents to nursing homes.

[/QUOTE]
1) Again, I’ve not seen evidence anyone didn’t have room.
2) That’s possible but I’ve not seen evidence of that either. I did read somewhere the average age of hospitalized patients has fallen and the percentage of hospitalizations with severe comorbidities has fallen as well. I think we have to consider the fact a majority of the most likely to die will succumb early in the pandemic. So going forward each step towards herd immunity will be less costly in terms of loss of life. I don’t see why being pragmatic about that generates such anger in some.

 

When looking at the chart there is no correction for the lag in time for those infected to die, nor for the time for those still in the hospital to die after the infection rate goes down. That's where the phase shift comes from.
So do you think we are just putting people in the hospital when they are less sick than we did early on?
As for nursing homes. It makes no difference if it comes in thru the front door or the back door it ravages everyone's nursing homes. Makes me laugh when I hear people say we just need to protect the vulnerable.

 

This is kind of anecdotal but can’t really find anything definitive on less sick people being hospitalized. To me it looks like people are going in with the same symptoms and admission criteria but are just younger and healthier so have better outcomes.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/norton...-norton-healthcare-but-cases-less-severe/amp/

Yes nursing homes are a bugger. Even states with low overall infections and deaths have big problems in care homes. Norton County Kansas is a good example. It looks like a red hot infection spot on maps, but most of the cases are in a care home where 100% of residents tested positive.

Quite a while back I floated the idea of running two types of care homes. Let families/residents choose between strict lockdown with the providers best suited to minimize introduction into the facility and conversely a facility that allows visitation and has less stringent protocols. At that point in my life I would want to be able to choose a risky, happier life over a still risky life that completely sucks. I believe the median life expectancy in a home is something like 6 months without Covid. Social support is the key factor in prolonging life in homes. With that gone, median life expectancy is going to be far less than 6 months even if not infected with SARS-CoV-2. I know life is precious. But quality of life is as well. Anyway, I’m 46, so maybe older people have different opinions, but that’s how I see it.

 

Yeah, I'm sure treatments are better now, but with tests so much easier to get I'm pretty sure people aren't as sick before they take action either.
The other biggie is the ages being so much lower now with the kids coming back to life.
I'm a great believer in the right to die.
It will be interesting to see what happens with this surge because it seems much more widely spread.

 

Maybe. Symptomatic people here always got tested. I’m not aware of any people who get “lucky” enough to test positive before presenting symptoms seeking hospitalization. I’m pretty sure no hospital is going to take asymptomatic or presymptomatic patients.

Good point about crumb crunchers. Get a bunch of six year olds in the data pool and average age goes down. Don’t think enough are going to the hospital to affect average age of hospitalized cases though.

Yeh, agree on right to die. And I believe in the right to live dangerously in the meantime as well. Agree it’s widely spread now. Frankly I think people have accepted the risks and are going to live life. Once Europe started out of control infections even with their vaunted “effective” mitigation I think people started to realize the hard reality of this thing. I don’t think the media etc. can scare most people anymore.

Unless they hurry up with a vaccine it’s going to come to late to do much good. Everyone will have already had it.

 

I don't think it's a matter of before your symptomatic, but rather how long after your symptomatic that matters.
You were a month behind New York.
You can tell they couldn't test early because of the shape of the curve.

Thousands of cases were lose in the wild before they knew what happened.

 

So you think lack of tests kept people from being hospitalized for Covid early in NY?

 

I think the hospitals simply turned away all but the sickest early on creating a higher death rate.
The test shortage contributed to the spread of the disease.

 

Oh dear! Your posts are starting to sound like appeals to emotion. Goodness.

 

We're headed for two thousand people a day dying.

Not having an emotional response to that much needless death says more than the Mods will let me say.

 

The mods probably don't care if I don't 'report' your post. Fear not sir, I am very thick skinned.

Thank you much for clearly demonstrating yours IS an appeal to emotion.

 

Fortunately the new president will respond appropriately.