That's fine, but I still think businesses that adjust will do better than those that just think everyone will come rushing back in like nothing is going on or has happened.

You may not think that's right, but that's probably going to be a reality businesses need to consider. Maybe there's enough people who just don't care to keep all those type businesses stay afloat, maybe not. It will be interesting to see what the free market does.

brownbrick said:

---

Per the test results -20% of NYC has anti-bodies. 20% of NYC is 1.6 million. NYC deaths are currently at 11,544. That's a death rate of .007215 or 0.72% (In the worst case scenario city in the USA).

Even this death rate only holds up if there are no advances in medicine and if hospitals become similarly overrun like they were in NYC. A very good argument can be made that the death rate will continue to drop as our doctors continue to learn how best to treat those with the worst cases.

Either way this is great news. Instead of 25-30 million dead if everyone got it we're looking at 2.5-3 million tops. Yes sobering, but still much better than we were told even three weeks ago.

---

I was thinking the same thing. From reading posts from doctors here and other places it seems like we have reduced the deaths as time has gone on. Maybe in the rest of the country doctors take what was learned in NY and the death rate is only 0.3%.

Duncan Idaho said:

---

26 mm unemployment claims for a few months. Would be less damaging than 4.4mm deaths.

If the serious containment, testing and tracing strategy were put in place, people would confidently return to work and the market.

If the bodies continue to build either quickly of trickle in, people will be less inclined to go back into the market.

You either have the choice of a U shaped recovery (real mitigation strategy) or a bathtub shaped recovery (opening too much too fast)

---

Take us down your thought process. I agree that things should remain closed down to some extent or at least some measures maintained until we beat this thing. My arguments for that are moral arguments because life matters and we shouldn't allow people to die unnecessarily.

That being said, I don't understand at all the argument you are making for that number of deaths, with the vast majority among the elderly, doing damage to the economy that is even close to comparable to the damage being done currently.

Answer this - what is the impact ECONOMICALLY when a retired individual dies?

Duncan Idaho said:

---

This does sound like great news until you do the numbers.

If this was allowed to run its course based on these numbers, you would be looking at 50,000 to 110,000 deaths in NYC alone.

And millions through out the country. 360/8 x 50k = 2.2 million

I am not sure what to tell you if you don't think 2.2-4.4 million deaths would have on the economy over the long term

---

Not every environment is NYC.

Population Density's
NYC = 26,000/sq mile
Total USA (including NYC) = 90/sq mile

The total cases numbers are BS

Quote:

---

why I'm not totally sure

---

Fair enough response.

The national average of known cases is still over 5%. Texas is under 3%, but Oklahoma is over 6%. Michigan is over 8%, higher than New York.

slacker00 said:

---

The total cases numbers are BS

---

His point is not so much the raw numbers, but the variances.

We all know the official total cases are some order of magnitudes too low, and no one is trying to claim otherwise. I don't think that defeats the purpose of the exercise.

Quote:

---

Take us down your thought process. I agree that things should remain closed down to some extent or at least some measures maintained until we beat this thing. My arguments for that are moral arguments because life matters and we shouldn't allow people to die unnecessarily.

That being said, I don't understand at all the argument you are making for that number of deaths, with the vast majority among the elderly, doing damage to the economy that is even close to comparable to the damage being done currently.

Answer this - what is the impact ECONOMICALLY when a retired individual dies?

---

First, retirees spend money. Spending supports jobs. Employed people spend money. Unemployed people do not. And keep going, and going.

This study, one of many on the economics of retirees, but picked because it involves Texas, showed that one "migrant retiree household" could support 0.5 to 1 extra jobs in their new locale.


Second, 1/5th of deaths per the CDC are 64 or under. Scaled up there's some large possible disruption. Its probably higher than the average bear, too, because your experienced manager is more likely your dead employee than your new higher out of college that doesn't know squat.

I understand but each state is not testing in a similar manner or to the same standards so comparing that particular number state to state is not great either.

where are you at? how old were they?

I'm in San Jose. 1 was Patricia Dowd.

RandyAg98 said:

---

"Take us down your thought process. I agree that things should remain closed down to some extent or at least some measures maintained until we beat this thing. "

Define "beat this thing"
Vaccine?
0 cases?
Everyone is dead and broke locked in their home?
No virus RNA on the face of the earth?

---

Vaccine and/or effective treatment plan. You may have missed the second part that said "or at least some measures maintained".

Demo_Slug said:

---

Two people at my work. Both in good physical Condition have died from this. It ain't bullcrap

---

How many people recover from flu to be permanently impaired?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/04/24/strokes-coronavirus-young-patients/%3foutputType=amp

SirLurksALot said:

---

What percentage of people are permanently impaired from covid? Anecdotes are meaningless.

---

Wish I knew.

I'd bet it's a fraction of a percent.

Duncan Idaho said:

---

This does sound like great news until you do the numbers.

If this was allowed to run its course based on these numbers, you would be looking at 50,000 to 110,000 deaths in NYC alone.

And millions through out the country. 360/8 x 50k = 2.2 million

I am not sure what to tell you if you don't think 2.2-4.4 million deaths would have on the economy over the long term

---

I hate to break it to you, but it would take years, massive reversal of urban sprawl and incredible amount of subway systems being built to potentially "scale up" what has happened in NYC.

Let's also pretend to not know who this targets... old and unhealthy. If you are in those categories, stay the f home. Everyone else go back to normal. It's like people can't even think within the box - the box is it targets olds and unhealthy, but let's lock everyone down. Smh...

Good thread on potential issues with serological studies:

If 14.9% have been infected in NY State, isn't a mortality rate calculated (approx) by # of NY State deaths 22,000 divided by (NY State Population 19,450,000 * 0.149)?

Complete Idiot said:

---

If 14.9% have been infected in NY State, isn't a mortality rate calculated (approx) by # of NY State deaths 22,000 divided by (NY State Population 19,450,000 * 0.149)?

---

So 0.76% IFR

Wrong math?
Don't trust NY antibody testing or death count?

Complete Idiot said:

---

Complete Idiot said:

---

If 14.9% have been infected in NY State, isn't a mortality rate calculated (approx) by # of NY State deaths 22,000 divided by (NY State Population 19,450,000 * 0.149)?

---

So 0.76% IFR

Wrong math?
Don't trust NY antibody testing or death count?

---

So with flu having .18 ifr (which includes comorbitities) this is only 4 times more deadly while being substantially more communicable with potential life long chronic health impacts...

Basically just like the flu

it sounds reasonable

1% IFR keeps showing up world wide, maybe a little less here in America since even NYC didn't get Wuhan or Lombary overwhelmed

the hospitalization and death data in NYC make it very clear who is at the most risk, however.

Duncan Idaho said:

---

Complete Idiot said:

---

Complete Idiot said:

---

If 14.9% have been infected in NY State, isn't a mortality rate calculated (approx) by # of NY State deaths 22,000 divided by (NY State Population 19,450,000 * 0.149)?

---

So 0.76% IFR

Wrong math?
Don't trust NY antibody testing or death count?

---

So with flu having .18 ifr (which includes comorbitities) this is only 4 times more deadly while being substantially more communicable with potential life long chronic health impacts...

Basically just like the flu

---

If we had a vaccine and all the treatments that we do for the flu, then the numbers would probably be similar. So currently it's worse than the flu, but in the future it's probably just another flu.