Posted on 04/27/2020 1:58:48 PM PDT by TexasGurl24
New York's second round of antibody testing found 14.9 percent of samples to be positive, a full percentage point higher than the first round, Cuomo said Monday.
That indicates even more than the 2.7 million New Yorkers identified in the first testing round may have been infected at some point. Many likely never even knew they had the virus -- and were spreading it.
New York state has reported nearly 300,000 confirmed cases to date. That number seems staggering -- until you realize the actual total could be 10 times higher at minimum.
Again, there were glaring variations by region, with samples in New York City, the nation's epicenter, showing much higher positivity rates (24.7 percent) than anywhere else in the state. The city's positive rate jumped up by about three percentage points since last week's study. Westchester/Rockland counties had a higher percentage of positives (15.1 percent) than Long Island (14.4 percent) in this round of testing, while the rest of the state averaged 3.2 percent.
Given the limitations of diagnostic testing, antibody testing paints a fuller picture of the scope of the pandemic in a given place. Cuomo has said it helps inform his opening strategy for New York: "Know what you are doing before you do it."
Antibodies don't guarantee immunity from reinfection, but the nation's top experts, including Dr. Anthony Fauci, say it's reasonable to assume someone who has had the virus won't get it again. At least not in the immediate future.
To date, New York City has seen more than 160,000 COVID-19 cases of the state's 291,000-plus total. It has also seen the most death -- 12,287 of the state's toll, which eclipsed 17,000 Monday as Cuomo added another 337 names (the lowest single-day toll in a month).
(Excerpt) Read more at nbcnewyork.com ...
That rapid transit system is the $hits. You reap what you sow, not that the lesson will be learned.
We have no clue what the infection fatality rate is for the flu — we don’t really test asymptomatic people. We don’t know what the CFR rate is either, we don’t test a lot of people with symptoms, just some that are feeling bad enough to go to the doctor and get tested. The CFR rate is just a calculated guess based on the flu tracking system, people dying of respiratory disease, etc.
What the numbers could indicate is that COVID is a lot less harmful than the flu to most people.
For example, made up numbers. Lets say 10% of people who get the flu have symptoms serious enough to get tested. Of those 10%, we know that .1% die, so the death rate of infected people would be 0.01% (CFR=.1%, IFR=0.01%)
Now, lets say that for COVID, 96% of those who “get it” have no symptoms, and 4% do. And lets say that of the 4% that do, half of them get tested (2%), and of that 2% that get tested, 1% of them die. The CFR is 1%, 10 times the CFR of flu.
But the IFR rate is 1% of 2%, or 0.02%, only twice as deadly as a standard flu which was 0.01%; and about the same death rate as the bad flu in 2018, for example.
Now, the wild card is that only 60% of the people in the country can “get” the flu, 40% are vaccinated. So the total susceptible population is bigger for this thing.
But as far as CFR and IFR, our CFR numbers are skewed by not testing everybody who even THINKS that they might have it, and the IFR numbers are skewed by our lack of knowledge of the asymptomatic and untested populations.
Valid points and I agree. I think a large part of the problem was the “fog of war” in which we operated in at the beginning of this. This fog led to the development of models that were largely based on the mortality rate of known cases and the absence of data among those who had no reason to be tested.
This made the virus appear far worse than it really was in terms of hospitalizations and mortality. They told us it mostly impacted the elderly and those in poor health, but they never really applied that knowledge to the projections.
It is a mess. Our current policy of shut-down is not warranted for much of the country by this data, yet I see no indication we are going to reverse course quickly as the “shut-down” seems to have a momentum of it’s own now.
Given that the profile for deaths from this illness is extremely skewed to really old people, and people with serious, deadly preconditions, I would not be surprised if any bump in this years death totals will be entirely negated by lower death counts in the next two years.
Remember, 2.8 million people over age 70 die each year. If 3 million die this year, it’s just 200,000 that are already dead and won’t die next year.
In Virginia, our current numbers, based on positive tests:
80+ : 48% of all deaths, Rate 18.5%
70 : 25% of all deaths, rate 9.9%
60 : 18% of all deaths, rate 4.3%
50 : 6% of all deaths, rate 1.1%
40 : 1.9% of all deaths, rate 0.4%
30 : .65% of all deaths, rate 0.1%
20 : .43% of all deaths, rate 0.1%
Note that there are a small number of tested people 39 and under, they make up 32% of the total positives — I don’t believe for a minute that the 40+ crowd is twice as infected as the 39 and under, I think a lot of 39 and unders don’t even know they are getting sick.
Point is — if you are not 40 yet, you have almost no chance of dying from this, unless you are already chronic.
Not enough.
May God wipe that city from the face of this earth.
Here’s what I am noticing, in every country. No matter what they do. No matter how badly they botch things up. No matter what type of lockdown they throw at it.
We have a few cases. Then a few more, then suddenly, somewhere there is an explosion of cases. Then it seems to hit a peak, even though we are nowhere near herd immunity, and in most cases no additional measures are implemented. (like New York was locked down two weeks before their explosion, and couldn’t lock down more before their numbers hit the top and started dropping).
When it is all done, a LOT of people are dead. But nowhere near 1% of the population of the country. Heck, even if china is lying by a factor of 100, that are nowhere near 1%, or 0.1%. 0.1% is a huge number, if you are assuming everybody is going to get this thing.
Instead, Belgium, the worst, is at 0.06% of their population. Italy is 0.05%, United states at 0.017%, the world is at 0.027%.
Why is that? Why does it simply stop infecting people?
My guess is a combination of a large population of people who got it and never knew, along with people with a natural immunity, and people who got some other cold that is close enough to this that they had some sort of protection already.
Whatever it is, the models act like half the people in the country have been vaccinated.
We vaccinate about 40% of the people for flu, and yet we have 20-80,000 flu deaths every year.
If we don’t get to 80,000 COVID deaths, with no vaccination, what does that tell us?
I messed that up, the WORLD death count right now is 0.0027% of the population. Not 0.027%. And that is based on the world having only 3 million cases, and we now think that New York City might have 2 million, and New York State almost 3 million by itself.
Well, we’re going to find out.
My objection to my Governor’s “shutdown” order was contained in his speech announcing it: he said that his experts advised him that at least 55% of Californians would eventually be infected. My reaction was “well, why do we have to destroy our economy if it’s going to burn through the population anyway? Looking back now, that was loserthink on my part. I still think that California overreacted badly, and that most cities that don’t rely heavily on public transportation didn’t need to be subjected to this level of economic trauma.
The most thoughtful and rational proposal that I’ve seen was published by Dr. Zelenko a few days ago, and can be found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vT4I4Ls6RAsDqSaKBVIdLPIKFNs7tbWWzZ3eP1NrNltiiZqmUHK-rPDLxeN2qvt0es1S-v6jP29S_T1/pub
The gist:
Deploying the above two-step strategy, it may be possible to decrease the mortality rate from 0.18% to 0.03% based on the following assumptions. (1) Early treatment with HCQ and AZ reduces mortality by at least half (recall the French study estimates a reduction by 80%) resulting in an adjusted mortality rate of 0.09%. (2) By encouraging the majority of the elderly and those with high-risk comorbidities to self-quarantine, the mortality rate could be conservatively reduced by another two-thirds resulting in a final COVID-19 adjusted mortality rate of 0.03%.
If we don’t get to 80,000 COVID deaths, with no vaccination, what does that tell us?
The counter-argument to comparisons with the flu is two-fold.
1) we don’t lock down typically for the flu... outside of individual school closures for outbreaks this is simply not done and has never really been contemplated.
2) we don’t practice anything close to the social distancing, PPE or other preventative measures, nor is the average individual overly conscious about the flu as we have been this virus.
While we all see and make (I have too) references or comparisons with the flu I am not sure it is a completely fair comparison as they are similar viruses, but dissimilar experiences.
We do not seem to know a lot about this thing, but we are learning more every week. We knew very little at the outset of it thanks in large part to China who not only put us in this predicament, but they then refused to allow us and others to collect 2 months of data in Wuhan so that our knowledge base was 2 months ahead of where it is now. This cannot be stated strongly enough in hindsight.
I don’t think we know the answer to your question about how/why does it seemingly peak on infections.
We would have way more infections if that was the case though
you missed my point and I’ll leave it at that
I got you’re point. You’re a weak-kneed quitter. Not much to get.
IS THE WHOLE THING A HOAX?!?
– At least one other serious illness involved in over 99% of NYC alleged C-19 deaths!
https://aclearerpicture.net/2020/04/27/is-the-whole-thing-a-hoax-at-least-one-other-serious-preexisting-illness-in-over-99-of-nyc-alleged-c-19-deaths/
Wrong moron, nobody’s quitting. 26 million jobs lost and Trumps has gone from a lock to even money. It’s called making an honest assessment.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.