5 ms·

NYC has 20x the deaths / 100k people, so under the assumption that number of deaths are on comparable trajectories (due to both locations being under lockdown,

by bla3 6y ago

NYC has 20x the deaths / 100k people, so under the assumption that number of deaths are on comparable trajectories (due to both locations being under lockdown, maybe not as unrealistic as a few weeks ago), NYC's prevalence could be 56%-112%. This could be one explanation for why numbers are going down in NYC, or the 112% being larger than 100% could suggest that either the situations aren't comparable or that the LA study's numbers are a bit high.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
lm28469 6y ago
You can't just take numbers and multiply them like that. What about average age? Number of icu beds? Effect of temperature/humidity on the virus? Population density? &c. There are so many variables
- zucker42 6y ago
  The point is that either these numbers are not accurate, or that there are crucial differences between LA and NYC. Either conclusion is interesting.
hilbertseries 6y ago
I don’t really understand your point. The error bars would be calculated differently for a larger sample. If you had 100/100 positives with a five percent error you wouldn’t say the true amount is 95 to 105. You’ve done some sloppy statistics and claimed this invalidates the work...
TheBlight 6y ago
LA's numbers seemingly agree with Santa Clara's numbers as well. I would guess NYC probably has a much higher rate of infection (possibly due to http://web.mit.edu/jeffrey/harris/HarrisJE_WP2_COVID19_NYC_13-Apr-2020.pdf http://web.mit.edu/jeffrey/harris/HarrisJE_WP2_COVID19_NYC_1... ?) But 50%+ seems pretty high. Is it also possible different strains are dominant in California and NYC with different mortality characteristics? There is also the issue of weather. A recently leaked DHS report indicates sunlight radically reduces virus half-life and it's also affected by temperature and humidity. Maybe subway + weather + (possibly) strain of differing virulence can explain the discrepancy?
- empath75 6y ago
  I don’t think 50% seems that high given the death count.
  - TheBlight 6y ago
    50% means every other person would have to have been infected. That seems a bit unlikely to me but I suppose it's possible.
    - babesh 6y ago
      It seems very improbable since the positive rate for tests in general are around 10% (at least in San Mateo county).
    - CydeWeys 6y ago
      It doesn't seem that unlikely to me (I live here). I know so many people, me included, who had it but aren't included in any official count for lack of testing, and so many others who must have had it (e.g. my cohabiting SO) who were asymptomatic.
  - kgwgk 6y ago
    If the true infection rate is 50% they are very unlucky with their tests because less than 40% of the people tested give a positive.
    - makomk 6y ago
      Not really. Antibody tests like this one measure the total number of people who've been infected at some point in the relatively recent past, whereas the diagnostic tests New York is using only detect current active infections, so it's easy for the percentage of infections measured by the former to be higher than the latter. When articles like this compare the number of known cases detected with the PCR diagnostic tests with the higher estimate based on antibody testing, they're comparing the sum of all cases detected since the start of PCR coronavirus testing with a point-in-time estimate of the proportion of the population that currently has antibodies for exactly this reason.
jupp0r 6y ago
NY has performed 32k tests per 1M population, CA 7k per 1M population [1]. If CA PCR-tested as much as NY, there would probably be way more official cases and your calculation would make more sense. [1] https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/ https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/ edit: typo
tanilama 6y ago
Death rate higher could be due to an overwhelmed health care system, so it is not linear. Once that threshold is hit, it will probably edge close to rate of severe cases among the patients.
megavolcano 6y ago
NYC is massively overreporting deaths. Just the other day they added 3700 "new" deaths that didn't even test positive, they just suspected (ie. pulled it out of their behind) that it was cause of death. Death numbers are overreported in general - Dr. Birx herself even claimed that if you test positive but die of something other than the virus they track it as a COVID death. It's preposterous.
- adventured 6y ago
  Belgium is doing something similar. They're being more aggressive than any other nation in Europe at labeling deaths Covid. It has contributed to their extreme case mortality rate. https://www.politico.eu/article/why-is-belgiums-death-toll-so-high/ https://www.politico.eu/article/why-is-belgiums-death-toll-s...
- eth0up 6y ago
  I listened to Birx[0] and perceived the same. I continue to wonder what I'm missing. If she's correct, there would be serious problems with such methods. Strange stuff. 0. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=blZpgra3XbU https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=blZpgra3XbU

by bla3 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

lm28469 6y ago

You can't just take numbers and multiply them like that. What about average age? Number of icu beds? Effect of temperature/humidity on the virus? Population density? &c. There are so many variables

zucker42 6y ago
The point is that either these numbers are not accurate, or that there are crucial differences between LA and NYC. Either conclusion is interesting.

hilbertseries 6y ago

I don’t really understand your point. The error bars would be calculated differently for a larger sample. If you had 100/100 positives with a five percent error you wouldn’t say the true amount is 95 to 105. You’ve done some sloppy statistics and claimed this invalidates the work...

TheBlight 6y ago

LA's numbers seemingly agree with Santa Clara's numbers as well. I would guess NYC probably has a much higher rate of infection (possibly due to http://web.mit.edu/jeffrey/harris/HarrisJE_WP2_COVID19_NYC_13-Apr-2020.pdf http://web.mit.edu/jeffrey/harris/HarrisJE_WP2_COVID19_NYC_1... ?) But 50%+ seems pretty high. Is it also possible different strains are dominant in California and NYC with different mortality characteristics? There is also the issue of weather. A recently leaked DHS report indicates sunlight radically reduces virus half-life and it's also affected by temperature and humidity. Maybe subway + weather + (possibly) strain of differing virulence can explain the discrepancy?

empath75 6y ago
I don’t think 50% seems that high given the death count.
- TheBlight 6y ago
  50% means every other person would have to have been infected. That seems a bit unlikely to me but I suppose it's possible.
  - babesh 6y ago
    It seems very improbable since the positive rate for tests in general are around 10% (at least in San Mateo county).
  - CydeWeys 6y ago
    It doesn't seem that unlikely to me (I live here). I know so many people, me included, who had it but aren't included in any official count for lack of testing, and so many others who must have had it (e.g. my cohabiting SO) who were asymptomatic.
- kgwgk 6y ago
  If the true infection rate is 50% they are very unlucky with their tests because less than 40% of the people tested give a positive.
  - makomk 6y ago
    Not really. Antibody tests like this one measure the total number of people who've been infected at some point in the relatively recent past, whereas the diagnostic tests New York is using only detect current active infections, so it's easy for the percentage of infections measured by the former to be higher than the latter. When articles like this compare the number of known cases detected with the PCR diagnostic tests with the higher estimate based on antibody testing, they're comparing the sum of all cases detected since the start of PCR coronavirus testing with a point-in-time estimate of the proportion of the population that currently has antibodies for exactly this reason.

jupp0r 6y ago

NY has performed 32k tests per 1M population, CA 7k per 1M population [1]. If CA PCR-tested as much as NY, there would probably be way more official cases and your calculation would make more sense. [1] https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/ https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/ edit: typo

tanilama 6y ago

Death rate higher could be due to an overwhelmed health care system, so it is not linear. Once that threshold is hit, it will probably edge close to rate of severe cases among the patients.

megavolcano 6y ago

NYC is massively overreporting deaths. Just the other day they added 3700 "new" deaths that didn't even test positive, they just suspected (ie. pulled it out of their behind) that it was cause of death. Death numbers are overreported in general - Dr. Birx herself even claimed that if you test positive but die of something other than the virus they track it as a COVID death. It's preposterous.

adventured 6y ago
Belgium is doing something similar. They're being more aggressive than any other nation in Europe at labeling deaths Covid. It has contributed to their extreme case mortality rate. https://www.politico.eu/article/why-is-belgiums-death-toll-so-high/ https://www.politico.eu/article/why-is-belgiums-death-toll-s...
eth0up 6y ago
I listened to Birx[0] and perceived the same. I continue to wonder what I'm missing. If she's correct, there would be serious problems with such methods. Strange stuff. 0. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=blZpgra3XbU https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=blZpgra3XbU