I assume you’re an expat English teacher?
Nah, bobo’s right here. This thing isn’t killing 9% of the people it’s infecting, there’s an enormous sampling bias that misses people who are asymptomatic or only have mild symptoms.
They may not have a choice trying to get stimulus done. They won’t sit around while the Dow goes to 10K and unemployment goes to 30%.
Do you think there’s any chance that weird 3-4 week cold that everyone got in the US in Oct-Jan could somehow have been a weaker version of this that gives us some immunity?
Or does the DNA evidence prove this thing originated in China and not a long time ago?
Like what are the odds it circulates as a weak weird cold for a year, then mutates into something worse Wuhan of all places? Seems low right?
The conspiracy that… he has dementia?
4 Likes
The highest estimates for covert cases are around 60% of total cases. If 80% of people got the virus in NYC and 40% of those were symptomatic, that would be 32% of the population being symptomatic cases. A CFR for non-covert cases of 9% would then represent 2.88% of the population dying. I’m not saying 2.5% of the population dying is likely, I’m saying it’s not impossible, in an out of control scenario.
Everyone knows that? Why is Bobo hung up on using a number the best experts in the world say we will never find? CFR being high in Italy says something about Italy. Things like they have an old population, too damn many of them smoke, they are telling olds fuck off you don’t get a ventilator, and they don’t have the capacity to test asymptotic people. We might be able to avoid some of those things if we bother to try to learn from them.
1 Like
A thousand times this.
It’s woefully negligent we don’t have this data and aren’t making any concrete moves to obtain this data (for instance, by testing x thousand people with gasp no symptoms at all).
Instead we let ludicrous outdated criteria inform our testing decisions. Like, have you been to China??–lol wtf does that matter post March 1? Or in most places just testing to determine whether quarantine treatment is necessary at additional resource spend. Not necessary if 10% of the people down in the non-COVID part of the hospital already have it anyways.
Ramping up the ability to do hundreds of thousands and eventually millions of tests per day is of critical importance. Each test carries with it some insane positive externality at this point.
4 Likes
I have no idea.
This is something the Erins talk about in that podcast I mentioned! Start listening at 30:46.Natural selection pushes viruses to become less lethal, so it’s very unusual for these to mutate into something worse.
Korea has done some random population sampling, and Australia as well. I don’t think either one shows what you’re hoping for.
However, an idea Will floated as a stab in the dark guess/theory is that possibly some people get infected and even when tested don’t have enough viral load to give a positive test result.
New info from NYC
| Age Group | Cases | Deaths | Fatality Rate |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0 to 17 | 341 | 0 | 0.0% |
| 18 to 44 | 6,035 | 3 | 0.0% |
| 45 to 65 | 4,343 | 31 | 0.7% |
| 65 to 74 | 1,402 | 23 | 1.6% |
| 75 and over | 988 | 68 | 6.9% |
| Unknown | 10 | 0 | 0.0% |
| Total | 13,119 | 125 | 1.0% |
source: https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/doh/downloads/pdf/imm/covid-19-daily-data-summary.pdf
But it happened with Spanish Flu. So it can happen.
Australia hasn’t really done any random sampling, to my knowledge.
On the Diamond Princess, of 700 people who tested positive to the virus, 18% never showed symptoms. Since that population skewed elderly, that is definitely a floor to the percentage of people who are totally asymptomatic. In Iceland’s random testing, 50% of positive tests are asymptomatic, but some of those people will probably go on to develop symptoms. My best guess would be that a third of people who get the virus never get symptoms, but there’s a lot of uncertainty.
I’ll see if I can find it. I’m fairly positive it was Australia that I read about recently but it’s possible I’m wrong.
Well, there’s a lot we don’t know about the 1918 flu, but you could also say the same thing about every seasonal flu and cold virus ever. The odds are still stacked against this happening.It’s like saying you think a meteor will hit the Earth tomorrow because it’s happened before.And like the world is different from what it was in 1918, medical science is different.
One thing that is puzzling to me is why CA has so many fewer cases than NY. CA is testing a lot less, but it also has less than a 10% positive rate, while NY’s positive rate is about 25%. I think this means the virus was in NY before CA or even WA, but WA got noticed first because it happened to hit a retirement home and cause a lot of deaths in a small place.
1 Like
Man, I loved the Chernobyl miniseries, but its memory highly depressing in these days. Like, sure, in the first episode, a bunch of corrupt bureaucrats are talking about denying everything and covering it up, but they almost immediately flip to shit line mobilizing every damn miner in the whole USSR and paying people to take considerable risk to sweep shit off the roof to stop this shit. We are a more incompetent and more corrupt country than that.
10 Likes
Shit, I just remember that I have to renew my car tags by Saturday. That requires an emissions test. I’m trying to find information about possibly delaying the test, but no luck so far. I might just have to risk it if testing stations are open.
New York also has a high population density which I’m sure is a contributing factor to having many more cases.
Sure, but LA and Bay Area are pretty dense as well