@no1marauder saidAnd of course, you wouldn't count cases up to June 13 if the study was done between May 1 and June 13. Since it takes at least 2 weeks to develop antibodies and you'd want the average number of cases to that point, you'd use a date a lot closer to May 1 than to June 13.
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.
Anyway, I already conceded earlier in the thread that NY had a high IFR, probably because of overtaxed hospitals (read about what Elmhurst hospital went through in March) and because the hit was early when treatment options were very poor. The current IFR and especially in places without overtaxed hospitals (i.e., everywhere, right now) is likely to be much lower.
Swedish study (and remember, Sweden got hit hard early) estimating total IFR or 0.58% and 0.09% for those under age 70.
https://www.folkhalsomyndigheten.se/contentassets/53c0dc391be54f5d959ead9131edb771/infection-fatality-rate-covid-19-stockholm-technical-report.pdf
(page 17)
Edit: 0.01% for under age 50. That's one in 10,000.
21 Jun 20
@sh76 saidEven conceding such a dubious methodology and using May 23rd, halfway through the study you get 377,207 confirmed cases. Even if go all the way back to May 1st, you get 315,222 cases. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/usa/new-york/
And of course, you wouldn't count cases up to June 13 if the study was done between May 1 and June 13. Since it takes at least 2 weeks to develop antibodies and you'd want the average number of cases to that point, you'd use a date a lot closer to May 1 than to June 13.
So is my 8:1 still "debunked" in your mind? It look likes I should have used 13.4% not 12.3%, so NY 19.5 million X .134 = 2.613 million cases. So even giving you the May 1st date, the ratio of antibody tested cases to confirmed is .................................. what, sh?
21 Jun 20
@sh76 saidOMG, please. That study assumes a better than 40:1 ratio between actual cases and confirmed ones! See Figure 3, p. 14
Swedish study (and remember, Sweden got hit hard early) estimating total IFR or 0.58% and 0.09% for those under age 70.
https://www.folkhalsomyndigheten.se/contentassets/53c0dc391be54f5d959ead9131edb771/infection-fatality-rate-covid-19-stockholm-technical-report.pdf
(page 17)
Edit: 0.01% for under age 50. That's one in 10,000.
21 Jun 20
@no1marauder saidYes, that gives you 8:1. As I told you, I was looking at the April study. You were looking at the May/June one. When we had the debate (and you declined by bet offer), that was right before the April 23 study came out, which would have shown ~ 14:1.
Even conceding such a dubious methodology and using May 23rd, halfway through the study you get 377,207 confirmed cases. Even if go all the way back to May 1st, you get 315,222 cases. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/usa/new-york/
So is my 8:1 still "debunked" in your mind? It look likes I should have used 13.4% not 12.3%, so NY 19.5 million X .134 = 2.613 mi ...[text shortened]... ate, the ratio of antibody tested cases to confirmed is .................................. what, sh?
But anyway, yes, this particular study supports your hypothesis. Most other studies I've seen support mine. I'll keep linking to them, though you'll no doubt find a different reason to dismiss every one that doesn't confirm your priors.
21 Jun 20
@no1marauder saidWon't you concede that the ratio of actual cases to confirmed ones changed dramatically over time?
OMG, please. That study assumes a better than 40:1 ratio between actual cases and confirmed ones! See Figure 3, p. 14
In early March in NY, actual cases to confirmed cases was probably 1,000 to 1. Nobody was being tested and the infection was running rampant.
21 Jun 20
@sh76 saidSure I'll concede that the amount of testing affects the ratio of actual cases to confirmed ones.
Won't you concede that the ratio of actual cases to confirmed ones changed dramatically over time?
In early March in NY, actual cases to confirmed cases was probably 1,000 to 1. Nobody was being tested and the infection was running rampant.
But I have no reason to trust the Swedish hypothesis which was the basis for their decision to avoid any type of major lockdowns and shoot for herd immunity. There was testing in Sweden in March, at lower levels than NY to be sure, but why should anyone accept a 40:1 ratio?
21 Jun 20
@sh76 saidActually even the April 23rd one wouldn't have but for your mathematical gymnastics. I'm pretty sure I got the initial 8:1 from the April study, but I'm too lazy to find the post.
Yes, that gives you 8:1. As I told you, I was looking at the April study. You were looking at the May/June one. When we had the debate (and you declined by bet offer), that was right before the April 23 study came out, which would have shown ~ 14:1.
But anyway, yes, this particular study supports your hypothesis. Most other studies I've seen support mine. I'll keep linking to ...[text shortened]... hough you'll no doubt find a different reason to dismiss every one that doesn't confirm your priors.
@sh76 saidFortunately, I have some Swedish antibody data:
Won't you concede that the ratio of actual cases to confirmed ones changed dramatically over time?
In early March in NY, actual cases to confirmed cases was probably 1,000 to 1. Nobody was being tested and the infection was running rampant.
"Analysis of samples collected at Week 21 shows that antibodies to covid-19 are detected in 6.3 percent of the studied population."
https://www.folkhalsomyndigheten.se/nyheter-och-press/nyhetsarkiv/2020/juni/forsta-resultaten-om-antikroppar-efter-genomgangen-covid-19-hos-blodgivare/
Sweden's population is 10.1 million. So 10.1 million X .063 = 636,000
Confirmed cases: 56,043.
We'll cut it off at June 1st to make you happy: 39,756
So at most 16:1. That would make the IFR about 1.3 if the correct number was used in the study you referenced.
Sweden's actual COVID death count is officially 5053 which would suggest an .8 IFR, but their death count reporting is slow and the antibody test results current.
21 Jun 20
He's an analysis (not a paper, granted), estimating Spain's IFR (as of May) of 0.734%.
https://twitter.com/gummibear737/status/1263082350709178368
As Spain was another country that got hit very hard very early, it's exceedingly likely that the IFR would be much lower today in an area without overwhelmed hospitals.
@sh76 saidThat chart gives an estimate of approximately 2.3 million cases in Spain. It gives as a total COVID death total 17, 248 getting to a .734 IFR.
He's an analysis (not a paper, granted), estimating Spain's IFR (as of May) of 0.734%.
https://twitter.com/gummibear737/status/1263082350709178368
As Spain was another country that got hit very hard very early, it's exceedingly likely that the IFR would be much lower today in an area without overwhelmed hospitals.
The problem:
"Finally, there was one issue with the data. The case chart I used showed 17k dead, whereas in the same report, it claims there are 28k dead
The extra dead in the total count were because of “suspected” Covid deaths that happen outside of hospitals. I presume mainly old age homes."
"People dying before getting to hospital are overwhelmingly old. And those “suspected” deaths are not confirmed Covid.
So, it would not change IFRs below 80 years of age, but would increase IFR above 80 and overall IFR."
Yes, it would increase overall IFR to about 1.2.
A May study:
Infection fatality rates ranged from 0.02% to 0.86% (median 0.26% ) and corrected values ranged from 0.02% to 0.78% (median 0.25% ). Among people <70 years old, infection fatality rates ranged from 0.00% to 0.26% with median of 0.05% (corrected, 0.00-0.23% with median of 0.04% ).
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.13.20101253v2
21 Jun 20
@no1marauder saidAnd Spain got hit hard and early. Along with northern Italy and New York, they're all almost certainly outliers on the high end of IFR.
That chart gives an estimate of approximately 2.3 million cases in Spain. It gives as a total COVID death total 17, 248 getting to a .734 IFR.
The problem:
"Finally, there was one issue with the data. The case chart I used showed 17k dead, whereas in the same report, it claims there are 28k dead
The extra dead in the total count were because of “suspected” Covid ...[text shortened]... d increase IFR above 80 and [b[overall IFR.[/b]"
Yes, it would increase overall IFR to about 1.2.