Your post was automatically removed for being about the coronavirus. We are allowing significant news stories as their own threads; if you think your article qualifies as major news, please message the mod team.
Yes that is indeed most states. Ignoring that NYC and PA are minutes apart and don't have any kind of "border control.". How could you have locked everyone into NYC when there are 10s of thousands of people coming and going from there who don't live there every day even without international travel?
National Guard, NY Guard and State Police.
Florida did it with only state police. They turned away tons of people with out of state plates trying to get in who didn't live there. 40 cars were from NY.
Manhattan is an island. People gonna build boats? lol. If you don't think that little amount of border is controllable then you sound like someone who also isn't familiar with how walls work.....
You give 24 hour notice to get to where you live if you don't live in NYC. And obviously let people in but not back out of they want to return home to NYC. You don't let a hot zone have freedom of movement out to uninflected areas? You shut down after spread?
Do you not grasp the proximity of NYC to CT, NJ, PA, MA? Like people commute daily from those states, let alone the rest of NY. Also that people can remain asymptomatic for days to weeks after exposure, so your 24 hour window is arbitrary and ineffective?
Wow. It's almost like if you control roads the people cannot commute. It's almost like if all you're doing is stopping people from leaving after their window to get home, which you can't really deny people a window to given the circumstances, you have a simpler job than controlling all traffic flows. It's almost like almost all population outflow is from roads and you don't have to man the entire border for great results.
Logic and critical thinking obviously isn't your strength. If it spreads while people are asymptomatic for 2 weeks then obviously you will ALWAYS get better results when you don't wait for those people to be symptomatic before you shut down, even if not perfect which is impossible. Not letting perfection stop better is better than good enough. Maybe a coloring book is a better presentation for you.
It's almost like you give people 24 hours to get back to where they shelter in place, weeks before you finally shut down and still have a better outcome than if you waited longer and didn't. It's not arbitrary that you won't completely stop it but will significantly reduce it compared to what happened.
Had Cuomo acted as soon as guidelines were issued and not after a lot of states with far less risk it would have had less impact. Even after he shut down the State NYC didn't enforce social distancing for another 3 weeks because they're incompetent goons.
What would they do with the 1000s of healthcare workers who volunteered to go there to work? Tell them they can never leave lol? Might as well kidnap and force them to head downstate to work.
You're right, I forgot that everyone drives into NYC over the same 2 bridges. Notorious commuter town lol. What are you going to do with all the people who don't make it out in 24 hours? They can't just triple flight and train capacity overnight dumbass.
Answer this: Is it better to detain more people or less people in an already crowded area with limited resources to treat them?
Don't forget you also said "most" states were on lockdown before NY. Not a lot, most.
Yeah genius. Like more than a week after PA when they had zero confirmed cases and NYC was already a mess. I was in PA the Friday they shut the whole state down by 8pm. NY was still open all next week when Cuomo could have closed NYC down before any other state.
Pennsylvania announced a shut down of non-essential businesses on March 19. New York announced it one day later on March 20 (to take effect on March 22).
That's not "more than a week".
And Pennsylvania is not "most states".
The results differed across the state with the largest concentration of positive antibody tests found in New York City at 21.2%. In Long Island, 16.7% of the people tested were positive and in Westchester, where the state’s first major outbreak originated, 11.7% of the tests were positive. The Covid-19 pandemic across the rest of the state is relatively contained with just 3.6% of positive test results.
Even if it’s the lowest percent... 3.6% state wide.... with a state population of 19.45 million, that’s means 700,200 people got it. With 15,740 deaths that’s just a .02 percent death rate. That’s less deadly than the common flu.
If this is the case, it’s time to get back to work.
My family and myself got wicked sick all at the same time after having a large family dinner in mid February. We all got sick within the same week. Three of us got tested and all tested negative. It's making me wonder if we had it. I had a horrible cough, chest tightness, fever on and off for three days. It was probably the most ill I've ever been.
Same. The schools in our area had a significant number of students absent for the flu too during that time as well. It's possible it was covid. That said, my mom also got sick in February but she contracted Covid last Saturday. Time will tell.
Yeah unfortunately I am also a nurse. I have seen it as well. DPH has essentially sent out letters telling us that we can come back now in as little as 7 days. But meanwhile the CDC is telling everyone else 14 days.
Interesting, suggests the mortality rate isn’t as bad as we thought...
Also with CT, isn’t the majority of the deaths senior citizens? I think I read 56% were from Nursing Homes, I wonder what proportion of the remaining 44% are 65+ older, have a pre-existing condition, etc.
Feel like a controlled open of the state may be a viable option if we isolate the most vulnerable and anyone who has contact with the most vulnerable groups, i.e people who’s grandparents live with them or have an immune compromised parent...
> Interesting, suggests the mortality rate isn’t as bad as we thought...
I am absolutely worried about it killing me, but I'm equally as worried about "surviving" it what with all of the various things I've read it can do to you. It's like Pandora's box.
The state has stopped included age of the deceased in their report starting on 4/20, however on 4/19 when the state had a total of 1127 reported deaths the breakdown was:
56% aged 80+ (630)
22.5% aged 70-79 (253)
14% aged 60-69 (158)
So ~93% of all deaths were 60+
I suspect the statistics got even more heavily skewed towards older age which is why they stopped reporting it.
Edit: it should be noted that 60+ makes up 36.8% of confirmed cases as of that date as well.
Why do you believe they’ve stopped reporting the age of the deceased? Today’s report has both number of infections and number of deaths across age ranges.
[Image of the charts](https://i.imgur.com/S80g4yC.jpg)
Link to the report:
That is strange, I wonder why that is. You're right, based off the governor's tweeted copies I don't see the age data for those days. In case anyone wants them:
April 20: [Tweet
April 21: [Tweet](https://twitter.com/GovNedLamont/status/1252690941858713607?s=20)
April 22: [Tweet](https://twitter.com/GovNedLamont/status/1253052323011723265?s=20)
If accurate, this is terrible news. Just looking at current deaths (remember, deaths lag) this would mean 100,000-125,000 dead in New York alone before herd immunity (murder) is achieved. This would mean 1.7million dead Americans before the country as a whole has reached “herd immunity”. That’s a .57% death rate.
Please don’t release this lockdown too soon... please build up testing capacity..
Note: I’m hopeful these results are also incorrect. I’m not confident in antibody studies results at this time. The tests seem flawed at this time.
Edit Fixed a mistake in my math- US deaths would be 1.7m not 3.9. Still unacceptable.
Cuomo himself said the results are likely implying more people with antibodies than the actual population. They randomly selected 3000 people at grocery stores and other stores, so someone who goes out four times a week was four times as likely to get tested as someone who goes out only once a week. And if you go out four times as often, you’re about four times as likely to get infected. So the number of New Yorkers with antibodies are probably lower than reported, and the deaths required to reach herd immunity are probably higher than you calculated.
A few other effects: Such studies relying on voluntary participation will attract people who think that they might have the coronavirus (e.g. they know a confirmed case or had some the symptoms). Additionally, the false-positive results might also skew the test. Furthermore, there might be also some death caused but not attribute to the coronavirus. So the immunity might be significantly lower and the CFR higher.
Brief note on the other hand- the tests have shown ridiculous false negative results. This alone may account for all of the above listed factors and then some. We just can’t gain any good data from current antibody tests
Disagree. A straightforward extrapolation of these stats and recorded deaths implies IFR>0.5. But we're pretty sure we're missing 20% of deaths (via excess all-cause mortality), and there are thousands of people who currently have it who won't recover - so that points to an IFR in the neighborhood of 1%+. That's better than we feared a month ago, but around expected IFR for a few weeks now (and still implying millions of deaths in the US without containment).
Is it really, though? I guess it's better than the 5% or even higher that was suspected at the start of the outbreak, but I think people were hoping for below 0.5, and this puts it in the 0.5 - 1% range. (And I don't think the 1-2% range has been entirely eliminated, due to the very long time between infection and death in some cases.)
Also, more asymptomatic and untracked cases means that the R0 is higher than previously expected and herd immunity will require a higher percent infected, say 80%. Combining all those numbers, we're looking at 1.3 - 2.6 million dead in the US. Up to 4 million if you want to be pessimistic.
I actually think herd immunity has been the inevitable path for a long time, even if the IFR had been higher than this. So I would put this news at not great... not bad. Sort of expected if you look at Diamond Princess and South Korea.
>Isn't the issue with herd immunity that we don't know how long the antibodies last for? Or is this reddit hysteria?
That's one issue, the other is that if we accept that the only way the disease stops is if 60+% of the population has it (assuming immunity works/lasts well enough) then there's the conflict of how/how fast to get there.
Currently the aim seems to be zero or near-zero transmission, which is at odds with a goal of infection-derived herd immunity.
If we accept that 60+% of us have to get it, then we need to talk about the lives we're trading in the various approaches, and no one wants to do that. It gets too ugly too fast- you'd have to weigh the value of a healthy 40 year-old's future against an obese older person's present, and the moral questions are more than most people want to tangle with.
I have a master's degree in ethics and all of us are gobsmacked. I spent years reading about hypothetical scenarios like this. I'm teaching now, but a few of my classmates got jobs as hospital ethicists. Used to be jealous of their paychecks but not right now...
Based on previous coronaviruses, there's reason to believe the antibodies will last a few months to a few years, but it's true we don't know for sure. Even if antibodies didn't last, if you survived the virus once, you're likely to survive again, due to genetics and pre-existing conditions. A second wave of the same virus would be less deadly.
It is fantastic news because we know the virus affects different demographics very differently. We can now use data to show that young, healthy people can safely acquire herd immunity while still imposing stricter restrictions on the vulnerable population. This allows the economy to gradually restart. There is little effect in locking down the younger workforce. As more and more develop the antibodies, they’ll be able to physically interact with the vulnerable people close to them.
But how will we decide who is healthy? Young seems easy enough, but in a country where a majority of *young* people are overweight or obese, will the majority of young people be disqualified? Obesity tends to correlate with poverty...will we create two classes of people where predominantly rich people are given exemption from these strict measures while large swaths of poor people remain under strict measures?
Note: not trying to spark a debate about personal responsibility and weight, health effects of obesity, or instigate any fatphobia. I'm overweight myself and i exercise, eat a lot of veggies, and am a damn hard worker. Nonetheless, vast scientific consensus says my excess weight puts me at more danger for covid, and i accept that fact
That’s an interesting question. The data shows that age correlates much more strongly. It would definitely not be the case that a majority of young people wouldn’t be able to work. But even if a certain number of young people need to stay home, and get wage supplements from the government it’s certainly better than how things are now.
Well aren’t you a ball of sunshine. The more facts we get the lower the IFR goes. First it was 3-5%, then 1-2%. Now we are seeing .2-.6%. This downward trend will continue as more facts confirmed and we can get rid of the doomsday models that have turned our world upside down worse than the virus.
Uh? Virologists have always put the death rate between 0.3 and 0.9. I heard that range since early march. The systems will still be overrun with a R0 of about 3 without counter measures.
Don't confuse the actual realistic death rate with the ratio of positive tested/dead.
A lot of recent news has been based off studies performed using antibody tests. I'm afraid that we're being lulled into a false sense of security with the new idea that "millions have been infected and never even knew it." The antibody tests used in the recent studies were manufactured in China, including the Stanford Santa Clara study and the LA County study. These studies are preprint and rely on high testing accuracy. I've made this list to show these studies should be taken with a giant grain of salt, or thrown out all together. Please feel free to copy and past this info and use it as your own.
Firstly, all antibody tests come with the following notice:
Positive results may be due to past or present infection with non-SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus strains, such as coronavirus HKU1, NL63, OC43, or 229E.
229E and OC43 are the coronaviruses primarily responsible for the common cold. A positive antibody test could simply mean the patient has antibodies for the common cold.
You're spamming this post in every thread that talks about the antibody test results from New York while ignoring that the tests mentioned in your links were either ordered from China or are not the antibody test being used by New York - which was recently approved for use by the FDA for testing purposes and the same test that has been in the works to detect the virus since January by medical professionals who had been working on the coronavirus family group for some time.
Here are details on the actual tests used:
I am surprised that this test is not that specific:
* Note: A reactive result may be due to past or present infection with non-SARS-CoV-2 strains. However, specificity
for the Wadsworth Center (WC) SARS-CoV-2 IgG test has been determined to be 93 to 100%. Therefore, significant
cross-reactivity to other known respiratory viruses is not expected.
Which lines up with some of the arguments being made above at least.
Post the full thing lol
* > **What is an IgG antibody?**
> Antibodies develop when the immune system responds to a germ, usually a virus or a bacterium. With other diseases, IgG is one type of antibody that usually develops 3-4 weeks after infection with the germ and lasts for a long time. Once you have IgG antibodies, your immune system may recognize the germ and be able to fight it the next time you are exposed to it. Infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus does seem to result in the production of IgG antibodies, though it isn’t known exactly when that happens and if it happens to everybody
* > **What test results will be reported?**
>The results for this test are reported as reactive, nonreactive or indeterminate. It is important to understand that this is a novel virus and we continue to advance in our understanding of COVID-19. Discuss any concerns or questions you may have about COVID-19 with your medical provider.
* > **What does a reactive result mean?**
> A reactive result on this test indicates that IgG antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 were present in the blood specimen. A reactive result can mean you had infection with SARS-CoV-2 in the past or it can mean you are currently infected. If you did not test positive for SARS-CoV-2 already, another test may be needed to see if you are currently infected.
*Note: A reactive result may be due to past or present infection with non-SARS-CoV-2 strains. However, specificity for the Wadsworth Center (WC) SARS-CoV-2 IgG test has been determined to be 93 to 100%. Therefore, significant cross-reactivity to other known respiratory viruses is not expected.*
* > **What does a nonreactive result mean?**
A nonreactive result on this test means that IgG antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 were not present in the blood. However,you may still be infected with SARS-CoV-2. An additional test would be needed to determine if you are infected or not. This test is called a molecular diagnostic test and can be done with a swab of your nose or throat or a test of your spit.
* > **What does an indeterminate result mean?**
> An indeterminate result means that the test did not produce a clear nonreactive or reactive result. This could happen if the test reacted with other antibodies in the blood or if you do have SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies but the levels are still too low to be reported as reactive.
It seems that they're well aware of the limitations.
Well, there is no peer reviewed paper on the study that I am aware of yet. Given the recent debacle with the Stanford paper, I think we really need to a peer reviewed paper before we can make any real conclusions - and there is certainly reason to be skeptical given the above.
The linked website, bloomberg.com, may not be reliable. Remember to always take the claims of unrecognized or unofficial sources with a grain of salt.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/China_Flu) if you have any questions or concerns.*
No, it's not the end of the world, and many of the dead might have died soonish anyway, given underlying conditions, but if you see the mortality charts, there's a wicked spike.
(You should be able to get behind the paywall to see NYT covid articles, might have to give your email or w/e)
0.58 is sadistic for a disease with no natural immunity that spreads so easily. If it hits 80% of the US, 1.52 million are dead. If it hits the upper bound and only 50% the country gets it, 1.43 million still die.
It’s a terrible number but consider the following:
- there are around 3 million deaths annually in the US
- most COVID deaths are old and immunocompromised people - how many would have died anyway within a short period of time?
- 80% would likely take two to three years
- there are ways that we can (and should) protect the most vulnerable from this without restricting the freedoms and livelihoods of every single person.
And if we restrict some of your freedoms while this pandemic spreads, it buys all of us time to explore new treatments options, and takes the pressure off our public health system...this will bring those numbers down further.
I agree that measures had to be taken in order to not overwhelm the system. I’m saying now we can start to ease things in many places where infections have peaked and there is plenty of available capacity.
This would put the mortality rate around 0.5%...far lower than what has been tossed around.
I suspect this is true otherwise we wouldn’t be talking about opening up NY and other areas in the foreseeable future without a vaccine or effective anti-viral drug.
>I'm astonished by what these data suggest even if these are just preliminary numbers.
To clarify, this is because they've found that it has been circulating for much longer than originally thought, not because the R factor is higher post patient zero.
I'm really not into the politics of it, but I'd been leaning towards somewhere around 0.7 lately. New York's current 0.77 fits that, but as a number I think it's pretty overrated anyway. Smallpox used to kill only a percent or two of Europeans, but in places where it was first introduced, it regularly killed 30-100%. A case of the runs which might annoy a healthy adult, could easily kill a malnourished toddler, and kills lots of them all the time. One place's number isn't necessarily another place's, or even the same place's number at a different time; they'll almost certainly change over the next several years. We'll eventually settle on some worldwide aggregate guesstimates and call them the CFR and IFR, but they won't apply to anywhere in particular, and may not be useful in guiding policy at a local or national level. CFR/IFR don't address long term damage to people to get it, so may give a poor idea of the human and social cost, even if they're correct. I try to stay focused on bringing it down without obsessing over what number it is. It's much worse than any normal flu. That's all I really need to know.
I think once antibody testing becomes more widespread we are going to realize that there were a lot of people who had it that only developed mild symptoms that they dismissed as a cold or the flu, or they were asymptomatic carriers.
Howdy, it's pretty likely many l, many people had it as early as January. The hospital I work at was the first in our state to get a COVID confirmation. We have been seeing an increase in respiratory issues since at least early January. An ER doc I am friends with here believes we were seeing COVID patients as early as November.
Me too. My 7 year old and my wife both had all Covid-19 symptoms ~end of January into February, son missed two weeks of school. He tested negative for flu and we were told he had some other viral infection. Needed oral and inhaled steroids to help him breathe (he is asthmatic). He was struggling initially. Crazy on and off fevers. Assumed wife caught what he had so we didn’t have her tested for flu. Further, we live at a boarding school and one of the kids that lives in the dorm our house is attached to came back to school after Christmas break with heavy flu like symptoms but insisted he was exhausted from two days travel and had jet lag. Guess where he’s from. Hubei province, two hours drive from Wuhan.
holy shit. 13.9% infected only? Death rate is over 0.1% of total population already. That means 1 in 1000 people in New York have died to COVID. If it reaches 50% infection like some people think by next year, then that means 1 in 250 will die.