Why NYC Has Such A High Infection/Death Rate

[friendly fred]

Originally Posted by oeb11

CT - i agree with u - i think we are coming to an understanding that the virus has a very low cae mortality rate - except for the elderly and those with underlying pre-disposing conditions.

I am very unsure as to the efficacy of nationwide testing - with a test - should come a plan for management - and i don't see that.

Many communities are looking at or coming out of shutdown - it is in the beginning phase. Hopefully with warmer weather the virus will continue to fade away. And - likely mutate into a less virulent subtype for next cold weather season.

We won't have a vaccine for at least a year - so plans for next winter need to be made.



I suggest we have gone about this the wrong way - we should offer isolation to prevent infection to those without immunity or with risk factors - the elderly and the immunosupressed - and let everyone else go about their business.

Those who wish to shelter - may do so.

The Cure has been far more damaging than the disease.

We need to adopt a different approach.



As i predicted at the beginning - the true case mortality numbers are very similar to that of Influenza A - which has killed over 60,000 people in a recent year.

and we did not shut down our economy over influenza A.

We have no choice but to follow your recommendations.

More kids are likely dying of child abuse than this particular virus.

The economy has been damaged heavily.

[oeb11]

FF - good point - kids seem to be generally immune to severe infection problems with Wuhan virus.

They may become infected - but the vast majority will be asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic.

So - Why are we keeping schools closed????

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by Chung Tran

I believe Cuomo, that most Carriers were from Europe. not germane to the thesis though.

there is a disconnect between the infected rate, and the death rates. the farther we go, the more the disparity.. the percentage of deaths from those who contracted CO-VID keeps dropping. it may be 60-70% of New Yorkers already have/had it. if so, they are the first to recover. if testing ever ramps up like we keep promising, we may learn that this virus was vastly overrated, at least among the semi-healthy, under 70 crowd.

60% to 70% is nowhere close. It's probably closer to 20% or 25% in NYC, and lower in other parts of the state:

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/ea...-19-2020-04-23

[oeb11]

i tend to agree with CT - Tiny - given the high penetrance (R0) of the virus - the close livinig conditions in NYC, and the as yet undetermined but high level of asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic infections - I think it is at least 40-50% of NYC dwellers have already been infected.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by Jacuzzme

Ramping up testing is ridiculous. In fact, the entire response has been ridiculous from day one. We’ve ruined a thriving country and will be lucky to recover in a decade. This guy sums it up well.
https://www.aier.org/article/an-egre...rious-accents/

If we give up on testing, and then march onward towards achieving herd immunity through allowing the virus to spread unimpeded as suggested by the link, we're probably looking at trillions more in government spending and damage to the economy. It's penny wise and pound foolish. In this scenario, the politicians including President Trump will shut down the economy again. I'm not saying the shut downs are good or bad, just that the public will demand them.

We're probably not nearly as far along towards achieving herd immunity as the link suggests, based on antibody testing of the general public in California and New York. With better quality and more widespread antibody tests we'll have a better idea.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by oeb11

i tend to agree with CT - Tiny - given the high penetrance (R0) of the virus - the close livinig conditions in NYC, and the as yet undetermined but high level of asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic infections - I think it is at least 40-50% of NYC dwellers have already been infected.

Respectfully I disagree, I'll take actual test results over speculation any day, even if the quality of the test is suspect. And if I understand correctly, the problem in general with the antibody tests, or at least some of them, is they give too many false positives. If that's the case you'd expect the % infected in NYC last week might be lower than the 21% they sampled.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by HedonistForever

It is expensive if you count staying closed in order to do this testing which will be interesting to read but will have proved to be utterly useless in trying to stop this virus. Once we got past a point of effective contact tracing, testing became meaningless and waiting for more testing has cost us dearly.

The overall costs are much higher if you wait around and do no testing and tracing until a significant % of the population is infected, like in NYC. At that point or before society demands a shut down. Testing and contact tracing work not only in South Korea which had its act together from the start but places like Germany and Denmark which were a bit later to the game. For most of the USA it's early in the game, in terms of the percentage of the population infected.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by oeb11

As i predicted at the beginning - the true case mortality numbers are very similar to that of Influenza A - which has killed over 60,000 people in a recent year.

and we did not shut down our economy over influenza A.

Have you looked at New York state? Compare the number of deaths to the number infected from antibody testing and you're looking at over 0.5% death rate for those infected. This is much higher than what you'd get from the Diamond Princess or influenza. The California antibody tests in Santa Clara and Los Angeles counties indicate the death rates are higher than Influenza A, but admittedly not hugely higher, like New York.

[friendly fred]

Originally Posted by oeb11

FF - good point - kids seem to be generally immune to severe infection problems with Wuhan virus.

They may become infected - but the vast majority will be asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic.

So - Why are we keeping schools closed????

Over the top panic...

[friendly fred]

Originally Posted by oeb11

i tend to agree with CT - Tiny - given the high penetrance (R0) of the virus - the close livinig conditions in NYC, and the as yet undetermined but high level of asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic infections - I think it is at least 40-50% of NYC dwellers have already been infected.

When you consider the lag time between testing and results, as well as the 14 days delay in antibodies being readable for the tests, I think it is reasonable to project even higher percentages of people in NYC than even the 20% published rate, for the time of the test, let alone the actual situation right now.

[Chung Tran]

the argument over the infection rate, is like trying to figure out the "E" in a price-earnings model now.. the earnings predictions are all over the place, and so is the infection rate numbers.

I agree we need much more testing.. GOOD tests, not those with significant failure rates. but until we get them, I think a few spots slowly opening, like we are getting now, is a prudent move.. that gives us a small sample to really study closely, we can be nimble if the numbers start working the wrong direction.

I don't think enough attention has been paid to the crowds we are creating, by limiting business, and enforcing social distance. Walmart and Home Depot are failures, long lines, close contact.. it's as if we decided (whoever "we" is) that the risk there is acceptable, yet we could spread the risk by allowing other stores to open. and really, the steps Abbott made Friday, allowing pick ups at Malls and such, is such a baby step it is near worthless. it will cost participating stores more to operate in that environment, than the sales created.

[Chung Tran]

Originally Posted by oeb11

CT - i agree with u - i think we are coming to an understanding that the virus has a very low cae mortality rate - except for the elderly and those with underlying pre-disposing conditions.


I suggest we have gone about this the wrong way - we should offer isolation to prevent infection to those without immunity or with risk factors - the elderly and the immunosupressed - and let everyone else go about their business.

Those who wish to shelter - may do so.

The Cure has been far more damaging than the disease.

this is where my head is at.. in reality, few people need to be really concerned.. the data is telling us this. even the so-called hot spots have seemed to fizzle quickly.. New Orleans, Miami.. I heard today that Dallas is considered a mini hot spot, but I ask.. by whom? the data says we have bent the curve sharply, and never had that much to begin.

I am getting the sense, the past 3-4 days, that one side is saying "we need to stop this shit, let's open back up and deal with what happens, which is probably little".. the other side is digging in, and talking about how much uncertainty there is, no vaccine coming soon.. but I look at New York, by far the greatest victim in the US, and how they are arresting the virus.. granted it's a slow process, but how much greater success should the rest of the Country have, that had much fewer cases, plus a lead time to act when they saw New York blowing up?

I feel like May 15 is THE DAY, assuming stay-at-home is followed well until then.

[Oilrig]

Nursing homes and public housing are the largest source of new infections in NYC. Trump gave Cuomo 1.2 billion dollars to set a tracing program Cuomo has quietly got black leaders to go to public housing projects and hired Mike Bloomberg to run the program. Bloomberg's stop and frisk will now be stop and test.

[oeb11]

Originally Posted by Tiny

Have you looked at New York state? Compare the number of deaths to the number infected from antibody testing and you're looking at over 0.5% death rate for those infected. This is much higher than what you'd get from the Diamond Princess or influenza. The California antibody tests in Santa Clara and Los Angeles counties indicate the death rates are higher than Influenza A, but admittedly not hugely higher, like New York.

i think NY is a diffeent lifestyle - all crammed on top of one another.

Also - Cuomo and Deblasio were out telling people in early March it was fine to out and about at festivals - no risk likely contributed to an early surge of inifections - many undiagnosed - which predictably spread to many other folks before the shut-down.

i lay that at two factors - the mode of life in NY (city area) - which is where most of these cases are - not upstat so much.

and to the irresponsibility of NYC management.