rick81721
Lothar
7d vs 3d doesn't change the trends, very similar numbers
This Thread Blows - C19 and beyond
- Thread starter Paul H
- Start date
7d vs 3d doesn't change the trends, very similar numbers
thegock
Well-Known Member
This is from the National Geographic article that I had linked in #4,723 above:
"Using a statistical model, epidemiologists at Columbia University estimated the infection-fatality rate for New York City based on its massive outbreak from March 1 to May 16. Their results, published online as a non-peer reviewed preprint on June 29, show that the coronavirus may be even deadlier than first thought.
According to their data, the COVID-19 infection-fatality rate is 1.46 percent
, or twice as high as earlier estimates(and much higher than a misinformed rate being widely shared on social media). This risk varies by age, with those older than 75 having the highest infection-fatality rate, at 13.83 percent. "
Why am I posting this? Well, it seems to me that we, as a society, have been underestimating the impact of the virus at every turn. The "misinformed rate" was shared on a different forum and woefully underestimates the impact of C19, but if you didn't know any better, it would seem plausible.
"Using a statistical model, epidemiologists at Columbia University estimated the infection-fatality rate for New York City based on its massive outbreak from March 1 to May 16. Their results, published online as a non-peer reviewed preprint on June 29, show that the coronavirus may be even deadlier than first thought.
According to their data, the COVID-19 infection-fatality rate is 1.46 percent
, or twice as high as earlier estimates(and much higher than a misinformed rate being widely shared on social media). This risk varies by age, with those older than 75 having the highest infection-fatality rate, at 13.83 percent. "
Why am I posting this? Well, it seems to me that we, as a society, have been underestimating the impact of the virus at every turn. The "misinformed rate" was shared on a different forum and woefully underestimates the impact of C19, but if you didn't know any better, it would seem plausible.
the new data with larger number of infections in younger people will help clarify the mortality rate for those cohorts.
They'll get a better grasp of co-morbidity risk factors too.
The mortality rate in that timeframe was dominated by deaths in nursing homes before stringent protocols were put in place.
- i guess you could still say "if they got it, the rate would be the same" - but prevention is working.
Paul H
Fearless OOS Poser
It will sorta... just disappear... i hope
rick81721
Lothar
That sounds about right for the data set they are talking about - onset to mid May. NY state took the brunt of the initial infection - death rates there will be higher than anywhere else. Right now, based on antibody testing from almost 2 months ago, I'd say NY state death rate is around 1%, but it will continue to drop. We need updated serology data to see where NY state is right now. I read one report today of a clinic in NYC finding 68% of patients testing positive for antibodies!
If NY state is really at 25% infection rate, the death rate drops to 0.5%
Maybe being *unclaimed* is the final result for those that are homeless and living on the streets. Not saying that is always the case.
Burials On New York Island Are Not New, But Are Increasing During Pandemic
New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio acknowledged that more people are being buried at the city's potter's field, but stressed that only the bodies of the unclaimed would be buried there.
www.npr.org
thegock
Well-Known Member
That may have been the NYT article regarding the testing results in Jackson Heights and Corona (!) CityMD locations.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/09/nyregion/nyc-coronavirus-antibodies.html?searchResultPosition=3
"At a clinic in Corona, a working-class neighborhood in Queens, more than 68 percent of people tested positive for antibodies to the new coronavirus. At another clinic in Jackson Heights, Queens, that number was 56 percent. But at a clinic in Cobble Hill, a mostly white and wealthy neighborhood in Brooklyn, only 13 percent of people tested positive for antibodies.
As it has swept through New York, the coronavirus has exposed stark inequalities in nearly every aspect of city life, from who has been most affected to how the health care system cared for those patients. Many lower-income neighborhoods, where Black and Latino residents make up a large part of the population, were hard hit, while many wealthy neighborhoods suffered much less.
But now, as the city braces for a possible second wave of the virus, some of those vulnerabilities may flip, with the affluent neighborhoods becoming most at risk of a surge. According to antibody test results from CityMD that were shared with The New York Times, some neighborhoods were so exposed to the virus during the peak of the epidemic in March and April that they might have some protection during a second wave.
“Some communities might have herd immunity,” said Dr. Daniel Frogel, a senior vice president for operations at CityMD, which plays a key role in the city’s testing program.
The CityMD statistics — which Dr. Frogel provided during an interview and which reflect tests done between late April and late June — appear to present the starkest picture yet of how infection rates have diverged across neighborhoods in the city.
As of June 26, CityMD had administered about 314,000 antibody tests in New York City. Citywide, 26 percent of the tests came back positive.
But Dr. Frogel said the testing results in Jackson Heights and Corona seemed to “jump off the map.”
While stopping short of predicting that those neighborhoods would be protected against a major new outbreak of the virus — a phenomenon known as herd immunity — several epidemiologists said that the different levels of antibody prevalence across the city are likely to play a role in what happens next, assuming that antibodies do in fact offer significant protection against future infection.
“In the future, the infection rate should really be lower in minority communities,” said Kitaw Demissie, an epidemiologist and the dean of the School of Public Health at SUNY Downstate Medical Center in Brooklyn.
Dr. Ted Long, the executive director of the city’s contact-tracing program, said that while much remained unknown about the strength and duration of the protection that antibodies offer, he was hopeful that hard-hit communities like Corona would have some degree of protection because of their high rate of positive tests. “We hope that that will confer greater herd immunity,” he said.
Neighborhoods that had relatively low infection rates — and where few residents have antibodies — are especially vulnerable going forward. There could be some degree of “catch up” among neighborhoods, said Prof. Denis Nash, an epidemiology professor at the CUNY School of Public Health.
But he added that even if infection rate were to climb in wealthier neighborhoods, “there are advantages to being in the neighborhoods that are hit later.” For one, doctors have become somewhat more adept at treating severe cases."
It goes on quite a bit more.
phillychris498
Well-Known Member
A few things I’d like to chime in on:
@Norm and @rick81721 have been talking about the oddness of NJ mortality rate compared to cases being so much higher than FL right now. It’s important to note that NJ/NY Daily deaths and current hospitalizations have plateaued over the past month+...it’s impossible to know when these sick individuals were a confirmed case in the data though. Some people have been in hospitals stuck on a ventilator for multiple weeks, while on the other hand, there isn’t as much active transmission translating to new cases of the virus in NJ/NY, hence the low Daily case growth in both states.
The “perfect” way to measure fatality rate has to take into account that the individuals dying today weren’t cases today, but rather cases multiple weeks ago. FL’s situation is so hard to compare to NJ’s now or even from March because of this increased testing, a higher percentage being younger folks, and the ability for our healthcare system to keep people critically ill with this virus alive for longer. As of now, the FL situation isn’t nearly as bad as NJ’s was approaching peak, at peak, and after peak, but the consistent 10,000+ positives a day aren’t encouraging.
The other important thing to touch on is that due to the increased demand for testing, it’s taking anywhere from 4-12 days for people to get test results back in hot spot states. So today’s cases are actually 4-12 days ago’s tests... making the calculation of today’s positives/today’s tests for positive hit rate inaccurate.
@Norm and @rick81721 have been talking about the oddness of NJ mortality rate compared to cases being so much higher than FL right now. It’s important to note that NJ/NY Daily deaths and current hospitalizations have plateaued over the past month+...it’s impossible to know when these sick individuals were a confirmed case in the data though. Some people have been in hospitals stuck on a ventilator for multiple weeks, while on the other hand, there isn’t as much active transmission translating to new cases of the virus in NJ/NY, hence the low Daily case growth in both states.
The “perfect” way to measure fatality rate has to take into account that the individuals dying today weren’t cases today, but rather cases multiple weeks ago. FL’s situation is so hard to compare to NJ’s now or even from March because of this increased testing, a higher percentage being younger folks, and the ability for our healthcare system to keep people critically ill with this virus alive for longer. As of now, the FL situation isn’t nearly as bad as NJ’s was approaching peak, at peak, and after peak, but the consistent 10,000+ positives a day aren’t encouraging.
The other important thing to touch on is that due to the increased demand for testing, it’s taking anywhere from 4-12 days for people to get test results back in hot spot states. So today’s cases are actually 4-12 days ago’s tests... making the calculation of today’s positives/today’s tests for positive hit rate inaccurate.
phillychris498
Well-Known Member
another note: Florida just started reporting data on current hospitalizations yesterday. Around 7,180 are currently hospitalized with COVID-19 in Florida as of today. NJ’s peak for current hospitalizations was just over 8,000 in mid April.
The source I’m using for my COVID data:
covidtracking.com
The source I’m using for my COVID data:
Key Metrics by State
The COVID Tracking Project collects and publishes the most complete testing data available for US states and territories.
covidtracking.com
thegock
Well-Known Member
15,300 new cases in FLA today @rick81721
rick81721
Lothar
138,000 test results, 11% positive. Most test results in one day by any state yet.
Blah.
I'm a group ride leader for HB that was willing to start up if they wanted to resume...my rides don't attract anyone anyway but the decision to completely nuke 2020 was fine with me.
Monkey Soup
Angry Wanker
Eating street food in a 3rd world country, make sure you bring a pound of immodium and some broad spectrum antibiotics with you.
Paul H
Fearless OOS Poser
Stay angry my friend
Monkey Soup
Angry Wanker
Stay ignorant, probably comes easy. Oh, and keep it coming, cheap and easy entertainment.
Paul H
Fearless OOS Poser
Great... i tell an angry wanker to stay angry and i get insulted.
thegock
Well-Known Member
Okay, here it comes.
Your theory about C19 deaths being overcounted needs some support, which I had asked you for above. Did you think I forgot? Meanwhile, I had linked two academic studies that concluded C19 deaths were probably undercounted. One was by scientists from Yale and VCU. I will take a wild ass guess here and bet your study, which is not yet posted in this thread, is from a scientist from tRUMP university.