21 Jun 20
@soothfast saidYou know what I mean. I mean of increases going forward. Obviously, it was a major problem on the whole.
After 121,000+ deaths you're still not convinced that there's a major problem?
21 Jun 20
@soothfast saidI would amend that slightly to say that it hits both but that the more severe outcomes are more frequently associated with cardiovascular issues than with pulmonary issues.
Your target figure of 0.5% IFR may indeed be attained in due time, if only because the virus will have burned uncontrollably through all susceptible segments of the population, leaving only the ones who are more resistant.
It is becoming apparent, though, that the disease primarily hits the circulatory system, and not the lungs. The lungs are hit secondarily, which helps explain some of the otherwise weird behaviors exhibited by the disease's progression.
That's why, for example, in March, they were talking about Asthma and chronic bronchitis as comorbidities, when they have actually turned out to be obesity, hypertension and Diabetes.
21 Jun 20
@soothfast saidI don't think 0.5% will be "attained in due time." I think it's already less than that for cases happening now, though it may have been higher than that back in March and April.
Your target figure of 0.5% IFR may indeed be attained in due time, if only because the virus will have burned uncontrollably through all susceptible segments of the population, leaving only the ones who are more resistant.
It is becoming apparent, though, that the disease primarily hits the circulatory system, and not the lungs. The lungs are hit secondarily, which helps explain some of the otherwise weird behaviors exhibited by the disease's progression.
21 Jun 20
@sh76 saidThinking is free but having some reliable evidence to back your thoughts is better in a Debates Forum.
I don't think 0.5% will be "attained in due time." I think it's already less than that for cases happening now, though it may have been higher than that back in March and April.
@no1marauder saidI'd say the CDC estimate plus the results of innumerable studies that I keep citing are evidence. That you keep calling them "junk" doesn't change their nature as evidence.
Thinking is free but having some reliable evidence to back your thoughts is better in a Debates Forum.
Edit: From the man who sunk the fraudulent Lancet HCQ study:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Ref79NvbaIk-J19k1Se32Ci5SJGgJjrkG_txHsXJNv8/htmlview
0.34% IFR as of mid May.
21 Jun 20
@sh76 saidThe CDC estimates have already been completely debunked. The studies you selectively use (ditching the ones like the NY antibody one when the results don't match what you like) are junk.
I'd say the CDC estimate plus the results of innumerable studies that I keep citing are evidence. That you keep calling them "junk" doesn't change their nature as evidence.
Your history of prediction regarding COVID is about as solid as Eladar's.
21 Jun 20
@no1marauder saidLMAO! Says the guy who is ignoring my debunking of your 8:1 estimate in this thread.
The CDC estimates have already been completely debunked. The studies you selectively use (ditching the ones like the NY antibody one when the results don't match what you like) are junk.
Your history of prediction regarding COVID is about as solid as Eladar's.
@no1marauder saidThe NY seroprevalence study supported my contention (and I conceded before the results came out that due to higher testing, it wouldn't have as great a ratio as the western ones).
The CDC estimates have already been completely debunked. The studies you selectively use (ditching the ones like the NY antibody one when the results don't match what you like) are junk.
Your history of prediction regarding COVID is about as solid as Eladar's.
21 Jun 20
@no1marauder said"Ditching" NY one?
The CDC estimates have already been completely debunked. The studies you selectively use (ditching the ones like the NY antibody one when the results don't match what you like) are junk.
Your history of prediction regarding COVID is about as solid as Eladar's.
I spent scores of posts on this board discussing the NY seroprevalence studies then and many times since.
@sh76 saidNope. NY has a population of about 20 million. The antibody tests found a statewide infection rate of 12.3%. https://www.6sqft.com/new-york-covid-antibody-test-preliminary-results/
Where did you get 8:1?
NY seroprevalence studies showed about 14% positive statewide (https://www.360dx.com/infectious-disease/new-york-california-serology-studies-give-early-estimates-covid-19-prevalence#.Xu-J42hKiUk), that's about 1.75m infections as of early-to-mid April. The study was released on April 23.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/23/nyregion/coronavirus-antibo ...[text shortened]... https://www.pix11.com/news/coronavirus/latest-coronavirus-updates-in-new-york-wednesday-april-1-2020
That would mean about 2.5 million rounding off.
The confirmed number of cases as of today is 411,009. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/usa/new-york/
The testing was done between May 1st and June 13th, so we should eliminate the confirmed tests since then. So on June 13th there were 404,437 confirmed cases. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/usa/new-york/
OK, you debunked my 8:1. It's more like 6:1.
You got me; I apologize for my grievous error.
EDIT: And with total deaths at 31,213 that yields a 1.2-1.3 IFR far higher than Todaro gives for NY.
@no1marauder saidThat's a different study. There was one done in April that obviously had very different results than the one done in May.
Nope. NY has a population of about 20 million. The antibody tests found a statewide infection rate of 12.3%. https://www.6sqft.com/new-york-covid-antibody-test-preliminary-results/
That would mean about 2.5 million rounding off.
The confirmed number of cases as of today is 411,009. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/usa/new-york/
The testing was done be ...[text shortened]... EDIT: And with total deaths at 31,213 that yields a 1.2-1.3 IFR far higher than Todaro gives for NY.
Incidentally, there's another recently done study that indicates that 80% of people exposed to COVID don't even develop antibodies, potentially slashing the IFR based on serology tests by 80%.
https://swprs.org/coronavirus-antibody-tests-show-only-one-fifth-of-infections/