Continuing my data series from Cuomo’s press conferences
Daily hospital and nursing home deaths in New York State since peak
April 8: 799
April 9: 777
April 10: 783
April 11: 758
April 12: 671
April 13: 778
April 14: 758
April 15: 606
April 16: 630
April 17: 540
April 18: 507
April 19: 478
April 20: 481
April 21: 474
April 22: 438
Preliminary results from Phase I of New York State antibody testing based on 3,000 tests:
13.9% positive
in NYC, 21.2% positive
Is there any point to buying one of these vs. a regular thermometer? I keep getting online ads for one. Unless you’re screening lots of people, it seems pointless.
Are they testing random samples? Seems very low.
Seems encouraging
I think we’re on the same page. As @TheNewT50 mentioned, we’re basically trying to get at the loss in QALY due to the virus. I have no problem with that approach - I think it’s a good one. I’m just concerned that it’s going to be weaponized by people who want to downplay the severity of this by downwardly-adjusting the COVID numbers because they’re skewed toward the elderly, without doing the same thing to the other causes of death that they’re comparing to.
Doing intercept study at grocery stores and other stores. So under-represents people who are isolating and people who are still working.
21.2% positive is .56% IFR for confirmed deaths only, .84% for confirmed + the big block of presumptive they have.
Obviously more are infected now than people who have antibodies. But deaths also lag. So it seems plausible that the lag of both cancel each other out - at least somewhat.
Looks like NYC could be at 25% or maybe 30%? when the first wave is over.
Yep, agreed. We were already hearing plenty of “I can’t get this!” from the dummy Spring Breakers. But I can’t help but admit I feel myself getting a bit more lax about things as a healthyish 40-something in a not-decimated part of NY seeing Cuomo’s daily numbers trending downward, so I’m sure this sentiment is going to only ramp up in those that aren’t the slightest bit introspective. Still not planning on licking stuff in the grocery store for a while though.
There could be a lot of different kinds of permanent or long-term damage we don’t know about yet.
Could also have a higher response rate if someone’s felt sick in the past few months but never got tested, right?
They are awesome if you have very young kids, especially if they are irritable when sick.
That NY study is probably a slight overestimate for all the reasons stated but that seems like mixed news to me (probably lean slightly good). On one hand if 10% or so have had it they are well on their way to herd immunity and at probably 15-20% in nyc they are even farther. On the other hand 1.3% of the entire state has actually tested positive. So getting a 10-15% antibody test is not that surprising considering.
Also if you say they are 1/5 of the way to herd immunity that means there will be roughly 100k dead just in New York barring something else happening.
Cuomo going HAM at McConnell
Hotels are all empty but the government can’t figure out that they should be quarantining people there instead of letting them infect everyone in their household?
I’m spending so much less money I’m legitimately astonished at how much I was spending before this thing hit.
My wife hasn’t worked since the first week in March and I have been making less than usual. We have more money than before this started. Which as you say really outlines how much waste must be in our normal spending.
So, in Cuomo’s antibody study, they found like 14% had antibodies. 22% or something in Manhattan.
Am I wrong in being a bit worried about that, in so much as the thought that many of those people have been clearly exposed to it, have developed some antibodies, and are out in public doing their thing.
You don’t only get antibodies magically after you’re fully recovered and can’t possibly still be contagious, right?
Edit: I don’t think they actually tested for COVID-19 alongside this test, right?
The study I posted earlier suggests that the contagious period is something like 3 days before the onset of symptoms to 8 days after the onset of symptoms.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0869-5
Our analysis suggests that viral shedding may begin 2 to 3 days before the appearance of the first symptoms. After symptom onset, viral loads decreased monotonically, consistent with two recent studies8,9. Another study from Wuhan reported that virus was detected for a median of 20 days (up to 37 days among survivors) after symptom onset10, but infectiousness may decline significantly 8 days after symptom onset, as live virus could no longer be cultured (according to Wölfel and colleagues11). Together, these results support our findings that the infectiousness profile may more closely resemble that of influenza than of SARS (Fig. 1a), although we did not have data on viral shedding before symptom onset6,12. Our results are also supported by reports of asymptomatic and presymptomatic transmission13,14.
I’m on unemployment and I have more more than when this started! And yeah eating at home and having to stay at home constantly has saved me a ton. Just everything that goes into leaving your house costs money and that’s all gone. I get to eat avocado toast every day and it counts as a sound financial decision! I hope I can keep this up when we’re off lockdown but I doubt it.
