Wayland said:
Daviewolf83 said:
Wayland said:
Statewide NY 13.9% tested positive for antibodies. Per Cuomo briefing. In preliminary survey of 3000 residents.
Positive for antibodies.
(NYC 21.2%)
(Long Island 16.7%)
(Westchester/ Rockland 11.7%)
(Rest of State not NYC/Westchester/LI 3.6%)
2.7 million people in NY is 13.9% of population. Puts preliminary death rate at 0.5%.
Again, just a phase 1, preliminary survey by NY State government. But hey, at least someone is looking.
And I know nothing about antibodies, but don't you have to clear the virus to have them so this doesn't include current actives?
How do you trace 3 million people. Test and trace is lost in some places. What is the R0 correlation to population density?
There are two types of antibodies, so it depends on which one they were testing for with their tests. The first type of antibody is produced early in the infection cycle and this is type IgM. The one they want to look for to see if someone has had the virus is IgG and this is produced late in the cycle and is the one present after you are over the infection.
As to R0, this is the number of cases an infected person will cause during the period they are infectious. As Dr. Fauci said a couple of weeks ago, social distancing is the enemy of R0. If you have a high population density, you would expect R0 to be high - compared to areas with lower population density. To the degree you social distance, you reduce the R0. Ideally, you want R0 to be as close to 0 as possible.
Right, but at what point did the lockdown help or did the virus hit its natural peak based on population density? Not that we shouldn't strive to protect susceptible populations. Just like each flu season has a natural peak and curve every year.
What if New York (and the other super high dense centers in Western Europe) just maxed out their curves based on population density. Spain has been locked down hard and still has deaths trailing. There are studies that show that the UK trend past its peak before the lockdown there could make an impact.
The lockdown came too late for it to help NYC and most everywhere else. I saw an article today (in the NY Times) that estimates that by the time the first case in NYC was diagnosed (March 1 - a lady who traveled from Iran), there were already over 10,000 cases silently active in the city.
As to deaths, we will always see them. Even if we stay locked down, we will continue to see them. By my estimates, in NC at least 50 deaths (likely more than this) have come from people infected
AFTER the lockdown went into place. I will have a post later to explain the methodology, but it is becoming clear to me that:
1. Lockdowns have helped to slow the spread
2. Lockdowns have prevented many deaths by slowing the spread
3. Staying locked down will
NOT stop cases from occurring and they will
NOT prevent large numbers of people from dying.
The best option to lower the number of deaths will be to:
1. Keep all nursing homes and other congregate facilities locked down until a vaccine is available.
2. People who are over the age of 65 and more importantly, people over the age of 70 should not be going to any functions or events where there are large groups of people until a vaccine is available.
These recommendations are based on two documented facts:
1. 85% of the deaths in NC are people over the age of 65
2. By tomorrow or Saturday at the latest, over half of the NCDHHS documented deaths in NC will be from Congregate facilities.