New York Antibody Testing Update

3,422 Views | 17 Replies | Last: 5 yr ago by DadHammer
NASAg03
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:41a, 5/29/20
15000 New Yorkers tested at the end of March.

14% found to have antibodies translating to 2.2million state-wide, meaning <10% of infections were reported.

Concentration in NYC is 22% with antibodies.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.25.20113050v1

Mike Shaw - Class of '03
Reply Quote
5
amercer
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:53a, 5/29/20
AG
I'm really starting to hate the preprint servers.

That's not a criticism of this particular paper, but a general problem that's come out of science reporting during the pandemic.

The whole point of peer review (even with it's flaws) is that I as a scientist don't have the time or the expertise to check through the methods and calculations of every paper that comes out.

Preprint worked great when it was a small group of physicists checking each other's math. Now it's basically a press release with a million different Twitter users trying to "evaluate" the claim based mostly on whether it says what they want to hear.

(Again this is not a criticism of this particular paper)
Reply Quote
15
HotardAg07
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:18a, 5/29/20
AG
If 22% of people in NYC got CV and 8.4MM people live in NYC, then that means 1.85MM people got CV. The confirmed CV death count in NYC is 16,673 and probable CV death count is 4,472. Using only confirmed cases, that works out to a IFR of 0.9%. If you include the probable numbers, it goes up to 1.1%. ~10x higher than flu.
Reply Quote
7
DadHammer
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 HotardAg07 • 11:21a, 5/29/20
AG
Concentrated mostly in the elderly and people with health problems.

Not the under 60 healthy Americans
Reply Quote
8
BBQ4Me
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:25a, 5/29/20
AG
Not sure how it would impact the statistics, but this was a convenience sample from people going to the grocery store. So that would likely leave out youth and elderly from the sample.
Reply Quote
NASAg03
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to HotardAg07 • 11:25a, 5/29/20
HotardAg07 said:
If 22% of people in NYC got CV and 8.4MM people live in NYC, then that means 1.85MM people got CV. The confirmed CV death count in NYC is 16,673 and probable CV death count is 4,472. Using only confirmed cases, that works out to a IFR of 0.9%. If you include the probable numbers, it goes up to 1.1%. ~10x higher than flu.


The study is from the end of March. you need death numbers from that time frame to get accurate IFR.
Mike Shaw - Class of '03
Reply Quote
14
NASAg03
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BBQ4Me • 11:37a, 5/29/20
BBQ4Me said:
Not sure how it would impact the statistics, but this was a convenience sample from people going to the grocery store. So that would likely leave out youth and elderly from the sample.


Correct the study was only 18+
Mike Shaw - Class of '03
Reply Quote
1
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 HotardAg07 • 12:42p, 5/29/20
AG
now do hospitalization rate
Reply Quote
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 cone • 1:56p, 5/29/20
cone said:
now do hospitalization rate
2,011,000 beds if 30% of the population is infected and 35% are asymptomatic per the oddly low 'best' estimates on the CDC page. HERE

0 - 49 : 700k beds (average stay if you don't go to ICU 3.7 days, 7.2 if ICU)
50 -65 : 550k beds (average stay if you don't go to ICU 4.3 days, 7.0 if ICU)
65+ : 750k beds (average stay if you don't go to ICU 4.3 days, 6.8 if ICU)

518k total ICU for the above scenario. 389k mechanical ventilation.

So I guess it's a matter of how fast does it really spread and how well does social distancing, masks, heat, awareness, etc slow it down. If it spreads slowly through the population and randomly, hotspot here, hotspot there, I guess we could probably handle it without too much problem. I guess, I have no data or way of really knowing that.

If we just go all out and shoot for herd immunity, assuming it's a nice low 50%: 3,353,000 beds. 863k ICU, 648k vent.

Now, the whole front load theory I could see really changing these longer term numbers to be much lower (in contrast to my comments in the other CDC thread). But how can we plan on "thinking or hoping" that's going to be the case?


Reply Quote
2 edits
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 ETFan • 2:33p, 5/29/20
AG
Quote:
I guess, I have no data or way of really knowing that.
well, you do know that the R0 will decay as the # of immune goes up

so unless it's a ridiculous overshoot and people drop all paranoia, especially those most susceptible to the illness, then it's unlikely it's going to spread within weeks

the last thing they are going to allow is non-productive large gatherings indoors. if you cut out the super spreading settings, it seems like this thing becomes much more manageable with regard to transmission

still as deadly, still not as likely to hospitalize you as once thought
Reply Quote
Federale01
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to DadHammer • 2:40p, 5/29/20
AG
Which means what exactly?
Reply Quote
1
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 cone • 3:53p, 5/29/20
cone said:
Quote:
I guess, I have no data or way of really knowing that.
well, you do know that the R0 will decay as the # of immune goes up

so unless it's a ridiculous overshoot and people drop all paranoia, especially those most susceptible to the illness, then it's unlikely it's going to spread within weeks

the last thing they are going to allow is non-productive large gatherings indoors. if you cut out the super spreading settings, it seems like this thing becomes much more manageable with regard to transmission

still as deadly, still not as likely to hospitalize you as once thought
I am operating under the assumption that what you say will remain true. I do think our awareness, lack of large gathering, etc will keep the spread slower than what we saw starting to happen before we shutdown.

But then I go to a certain forum and see people yelling for sports stadiums to be packed, no desire to mask anywhere, a nothingburger, etc. I realize these are (hopefully) the minority, but that's why I post the big numbers, it's still a pretty bad outcome if you let this thing run wild. *Not an attempt to derail*

Anyway, I think we'll be able to manage, it's just going to be a lot of people hospitalized that we need to spread out, and probably will.
Reply Quote
6
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 DadHammer • 4:02p, 5/29/20
DadHammer said:
Concentrated mostly in the elderly and people with health problems.

Not the under 60 healthy Americans
49 and under you end up with 1.1mil in the hospital, 255k in ICU, 184k on vents. If you shoot for a herd immunity that is 50% of the population infected. We don't know what it's going to take for herd immunity.

Just gotta spread those numbers out and hope there's a variable we haven't seen come in to play yet (like front loading), vaccine, etc. But, the idea this doesn't mess with the under 50 population is false given what we currently know and the numbers from the CDC. Which, I use tentatively because their S-IFR is extraordinarily low so I don't know what to think of their hosp. numbers.

Double those numbers for people over the age of 50. 50 to 65 being 920k hospitalized.

Reply Quote
2
Duncan Idaho
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to ETFan • 4:35p, 5/29/20
And again...natural herd immunity is an outcome...not a strategy

You dont shoot for herd immunity, you dont pursue it..it happens.
Reply Quote
2
beerad12man
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:43p, 5/29/20
AG
It may be a strategy if the alternative in trying to prevent it from happening, or at least delay it from happening for too long are worse than it itself.
Reply Quote
2
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 Duncan Idaho • 4:52p, 5/29/20
Duncan Idaho said:
And again...natural herd immunity is an outcome...not a strategy

You dont shoot for herd immunity, you dont pursue it..it happens.
Obviously, that was more directed at the "strategy" posted commonly from people saying "open up and let's get to herd immunity asap".If herd immunity is acquired at 50%, then -> see numbers I posted.
Reply Quote
1
DadHammer
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 • 10:37a, 5/30/20
AG
That's not my point.

The point is lockdowns are not the answer, period.

We know who is most effected. Protect them. The rest get to work.

The numbers absolutely support this. Yes people are going to get sick but you can't hide from this. It's a virus set on us by China, with have to live with it now and staying in lock down is just dumb and killing people and the data has supported that for weeks.
Reply Quote
2
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 DadHammer • 11:08a, 5/30/20
DadHammer said:
That's not my point.

The point is lockdowns are not the answer, period.

We know who is most effected. Protect them. The rest get to work.

The numbers absolutely support this. Yes people are going to get sick but you can't hide from this. It's a virus set on us by China, with have to live with it now and staying in lock down is just dumb and killing people and the data has supported that for weeks.
Yeah, almost no one is saying stay locked down forever, but I was responding to your comment that it doesn't affect younger people, it certainly does.

The most affected are the ones in society who depend the most on those not effected. That's a tricky segregation to implement, IMO. We'll have to do it to a certain extend, obviously. But, it also affects a large chunk of the younger population too, just not as much death, I've posted the numbers.

I don't know what China has to do with this discussion, but this is a virus that we have and still don't know a lot about especially long term affects. So it's a bit ignorant, IMO, to rush open without a plan and the attitude of "It's just the olds! Keep em home and everyone else go back to normal."
Reply Quote
5
1 edit
DadHammer
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 • 11:12a, 5/30/20
AG
So how long do you lock down knowing you are killing more people with the lockdown?

You don't make any sense to me. We just disagree with each other.
You don't lock down the healthy only the vulnerable.

Your lock down is not saving anyone and is hurting many many people.

Reply Quote
1
3 edits
Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.