6 ms·

Define "huge portion" because will still have to square this with the negative test data from NYC.

joe_the_user 6y ago
Yeah, trying to do the basic math on the implications of these figures...[Not claiming they're true, that's a different question] The article says 221,000 infected at a 2.8% rate, in "early April". So they're assuming a 7,892,857 population. Currently, we have 601 Deaths total in LA[1], which we can assume are a result of early april event on April 20. So a 0.002% "fatality rate" relative to total exposures, "Woohoo" (NOTE, this is an optimistic figure implied by this study, the standard 2% [edited] previously claim but still not equivalent to the flu, which has 0.2% [edited] relative people who get sick). Now, with weekly doubling: 221,0008 = 1,768,000 infection now = 22.4% - > 4808 deaths. However, past 10%, we can ask whether we start reaching saturation/diminishing returns. But that is a key question. -- Let's look at NYC. There we have 14,500 Death. Using the article's implied figure, 14,500/ 0.002 = 7,250,000 infected on April 1, out of 8,398,748. So this implies an infection rate of 7,250,000/8,398,748 = 86.32239%, which, in fact, seems very implausible and which implies; a higher death rate among "vulnerable people". Maybe we're about to hit full saturation with NYC and see an immediate decline. Now, the other bad* scenario is the possibility that a lot of sickness and death NOW is being driven by reinfection, that exposure isn't giving much immunity at all and instead of the unexposed dying, what we're seeing is the re-exposed dying and with this dynamic, the death rate settle into a steady and unacceptably high level. Note that Italy, which has seen a high death rate, hasn't a strong drop-off at all, just gradual plateauing. IE, guess what, one possibility is "herd immunity" just doesn't exist for this virus. Anyway, time will tell, literally a week will tell if NYC has enough fatalities to make this 0.002 exposure-to-death rate numerically impossible. [1] covid-19.live Edit: corrected conversion ratio to percentages.
- zucker42 6y ago
  I think that number should be 0.2% (2 / 1000) and not 0.002% (2 / 100000).
  - joe_the_user 6y ago
    Yeah, 2% is the standard and more plausible in many ways than 0.002% [edit, WRONG ,missed a decimal point, should be 2% & .2%]. My comments above are about what this study implies, this something new. Italy has had 24114 deaths. If take those as being in Northern Italy with a 27,000,000 population, that's 0.8931 % of the entire population. Even adjusting for age, that can't squared with 0.002% death rate [wrong wrong, it's 0.08931%, which is possible but with a huge infection rate, which maybe].
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - jsnell 6y ago
      I think you've misunderstood the comment by zucker52: your post is using 0.002 and 0.002% interchangably. It's quite hard to figure out what you mean when the numbers are off by two factors of magnitude in places. For example: > So a 0.002% "fatality rate" relative to total exposures, You appear to be deriving this from the computation 601/221000. That gives .27%, not 0.002%. > Italy has had 24114 deaths. If take those as being in Northern Italy with a 27,000,000 population, that's 0.8931% of the entire population No it's not. 1% of 27M is 270k, not 27k.
      - joe_the_user 6y ago
        Damn, I am being sloppy, Yeah, 0.08931% of the population of Italy experienced fatality. If we assume .2% fatality rate, that implies 50% of the population was infected (which might make sense with an extremely contagious virus but that's more than even the cruise ships).
        arcticbull 6y ago
        The issue is you're not adjusting for the exponential fatality risk for old folks, and that those in Lombardy are the oldest in Europe. It's hundreds of times worse for old folks than for young folks.
- ransom1538 6y ago
  "Now, the other bad* scenario is the possibility that a lot "of sickness and death NOW is being driven by reinfection, that exposure isn't giving much immunity at all and instead of the unexposed dying" This would explain: NYC vs LA vs Italy. Why isn't this theory brought up more? "Wang, whose full name has not been disclosed for privacy reasons, is one of more than 100 reported cases of Chinese patients who have been released from hospitals as survivors of the new coronavirus — only to test positive for it a second time in the bewildering math of this mysterious illness." https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2020-03-13/china-japan-korea-coronavirus-reinfection-test-positive https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2020-03-13/china-...
  - rootusrootus 6y ago
    > Why isn't this theory brought up more? Because if reinfection so close to recovery were possible, it would make this virus really unique, and it doesn't really fit the available data very well. It makes much more sense that the virus takes a long time to clear after symptoms abate, and the tests have a really lousy false negative rate.
    - joe_the_user 6y ago
      The common cold is infamous for mutating at a rate where you can catch the virus again two months after infection. And moreover, the common cold is also a coronavirus. Moreover, if a lot of Covid infections are in the area and the virus is mutating quickly, a person might be exposed to a different strain soon after recovery and wind up infected, if the SAR-COV-19 is similar to the common cold. This would be hard to notice, since it would tend to happen as the virus was spreading rapidly anyway. It would become a problem only if people expected the virus to abate once everyone had been exposed. See: https://www.technologynetworks.com/immunology/news/why-dont-we-ever-develop-immunity-against-the-common-cold-294551 https://www.technologynetworks.com/immunology/news/why-dont-...
      - Izkata 6y ago
        No. The "common cold" is a collection of 200-something distinct viruses with the same/similar symptoms, only like 10-20% of which are coronaviruses. Most of them are rhinoviruses.
- usaar333 6y ago
  > Note that Italy, which has seen a high death rate, hasn't a strong drop-off at all, just gradual plateauing. Regional differences? Lombardy's death rate is less than half of peak
- mrfusion 6y ago
  What’s the source on reinfection? That sounds kind of extraordinary. It seems weird to think the body can clear an infection but have no ability to fight it later.
  - JetSetWilly 6y ago
    There is none, it is just speculation/hysteria like so much else about this virus. There's been only a very few cases globally where a person who previously tested negative later tested positive, for which a test giving a false negative is a much more likely explanation - especially as these cases were early on when tests were more unreliable. Otherwise - everybody else who tests negative does so consistently. The virus is very similar to the original SARS (genome about 80% the same which is huge). It is a relatively stable by virus standards not mutating massively. In fact, if you had SARS your are likely immune from covid19: https://marlin-prod.literatumonline.com/pb-assets/journals/research/cell/CELL_S0092-8674%2820%2930229-4.pdf https://marlin-prod.literatumonline.com/pb-assets/journals/r... So the general scientific consensus I have seen is that there's no evidence to suggest covid19 is some sort of supervirus that will reinfect people and defeat your immune system. There's also been some animal testing on reinfection : https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.13.990226v1 https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.13.990226v1
    - joe_the_user 6y ago
      Yes, reinfection is speculation and limits the virus to infect the population is speculation. Beyond the situation of the virus growing exponentially, there are few certainties. I add this point because most of speculative arguments are used to claim allowing the virus infect a large portion of population won't cause much harm.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
heartbreak 6y ago
There’s clearly a lot of false negatives produced by the PCR testing we’re doing nationwide.

Yeah, trying to do the basic math on the implications of these figures...[Not claiming they're true, that's a different question] The article says 221,000 infected at a 2.8% rate, in "early April". So they're assuming a 7,892,857 population. Currently, we have 601 Deaths total in LA[1], which we can assume are a result of early april event on April 20. So a 0.002% "fatality rate" relative to total exposures, "Woohoo" (NOTE, this is an optimistic figure implied by this study, the standard 2% [edited] previously claim but still not equivalent to the flu, which has 0.2% [edited] relative people who get sick). Now, with weekly doubling: 221,0008 = 1,768,000 infection now = 22.4% - > 4808 deaths. However, past 10%, we can ask whether we start reaching saturation/diminishing returns. But that is a key question. -- Let's look at NYC. There we have 14,500 Death. Using the article's implied figure, 14,500/ 0.002 = 7,250,000 infected on April 1, out of 8,398,748. So this implies an infection rate of 7,250,000/8,398,748 = 86.32239%, which, in fact, seems very implausible and which implies; a higher death rate among "vulnerable people". Maybe we're about to hit full saturation with NYC and see an immediate decline. Now, the other bad* scenario is the possibility that a lot of sickness and death NOW is being driven by reinfection, that exposure isn't giving much immunity at all and instead of the unexposed dying, what we're seeing is the re-exposed dying and with this dynamic, the death rate settle into a steady and unacceptably high level. Note that Italy, which has seen a high death rate, hasn't a strong drop-off at all, just gradual plateauing. IE, guess what, one possibility is "herd immunity" just doesn't exist for this virus. Anyway, time will tell, literally a week will tell if NYC has enough fatalities to make this 0.002 exposure-to-death rate numerically impossible. [1] covid-19.live Edit: corrected conversion ratio to percentages.

zucker42 6y ago
I think that number should be 0.2% (2 / 1000) and not 0.002% (2 / 100000).
- joe_the_user 6y ago
  Yeah, 2% is the standard and more plausible in many ways than 0.002% [edit, WRONG ,missed a decimal point, should be 2% & .2%]. My comments above are about what this study implies, this something new. Italy has had 24114 deaths. If take those as being in Northern Italy with a 27,000,000 population, that's 0.8931 % of the entire population. Even adjusting for age, that can't squared with 0.002% death rate [wrong wrong, it's 0.08931%, which is possible but with a huge infection rate, which maybe].
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - jsnell 6y ago
    I think you've misunderstood the comment by zucker52: your post is using 0.002 and 0.002% interchangably. It's quite hard to figure out what you mean when the numbers are off by two factors of magnitude in places. For example: > So a 0.002% "fatality rate" relative to total exposures, You appear to be deriving this from the computation 601/221000. That gives .27%, not 0.002%. > Italy has had 24114 deaths. If take those as being in Northern Italy with a 27,000,000 population, that's 0.8931% of the entire population No it's not. 1% of 27M is 270k, not 27k.
    - joe_the_user 6y ago
      Damn, I am being sloppy, Yeah, 0.08931% of the population of Italy experienced fatality. If we assume .2% fatality rate, that implies 50% of the population was infected (which might make sense with an extremely contagious virus but that's more than even the cruise ships).
      - arcticbull 6y ago
        The issue is you're not adjusting for the exponential fatality risk for old folks, and that those in Lombardy are the oldest in Europe. It's hundreds of times worse for old folks than for young folks.
ransom1538 6y ago
"Now, the other bad* scenario is the possibility that a lot "of sickness and death NOW is being driven by reinfection, that exposure isn't giving much immunity at all and instead of the unexposed dying" This would explain: NYC vs LA vs Italy. Why isn't this theory brought up more? "Wang, whose full name has not been disclosed for privacy reasons, is one of more than 100 reported cases of Chinese patients who have been released from hospitals as survivors of the new coronavirus — only to test positive for it a second time in the bewildering math of this mysterious illness." https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2020-03-13/china-japan-korea-coronavirus-reinfection-test-positive https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2020-03-13/china-...
- rootusrootus 6y ago
  > Why isn't this theory brought up more? Because if reinfection so close to recovery were possible, it would make this virus really unique, and it doesn't really fit the available data very well. It makes much more sense that the virus takes a long time to clear after symptoms abate, and the tests have a really lousy false negative rate.
  - joe_the_user 6y ago
    The common cold is infamous for mutating at a rate where you can catch the virus again two months after infection. And moreover, the common cold is also a coronavirus. Moreover, if a lot of Covid infections are in the area and the virus is mutating quickly, a person might be exposed to a different strain soon after recovery and wind up infected, if the SAR-COV-19 is similar to the common cold. This would be hard to notice, since it would tend to happen as the virus was spreading rapidly anyway. It would become a problem only if people expected the virus to abate once everyone had been exposed. See: https://www.technologynetworks.com/immunology/news/why-dont-we-ever-develop-immunity-against-the-common-cold-294551 https://www.technologynetworks.com/immunology/news/why-dont-...
    - Izkata 6y ago
      No. The "common cold" is a collection of 200-something distinct viruses with the same/similar symptoms, only like 10-20% of which are coronaviruses. Most of them are rhinoviruses.
usaar333 6y ago
> Note that Italy, which has seen a high death rate, hasn't a strong drop-off at all, just gradual plateauing. Regional differences? Lombardy's death rate is less than half of peak
mrfusion 6y ago
What’s the source on reinfection? That sounds kind of extraordinary. It seems weird to think the body can clear an infection but have no ability to fight it later.
- JetSetWilly 6y ago
  There is none, it is just speculation/hysteria like so much else about this virus. There's been only a very few cases globally where a person who previously tested negative later tested positive, for which a test giving a false negative is a much more likely explanation - especially as these cases were early on when tests were more unreliable. Otherwise - everybody else who tests negative does so consistently. The virus is very similar to the original SARS (genome about 80% the same which is huge). It is a relatively stable by virus standards not mutating massively. In fact, if you had SARS your are likely immune from covid19: https://marlin-prod.literatumonline.com/pb-assets/journals/research/cell/CELL_S0092-8674%2820%2930229-4.pdf https://marlin-prod.literatumonline.com/pb-assets/journals/r... So the general scientific consensus I have seen is that there's no evidence to suggest covid19 is some sort of supervirus that will reinfect people and defeat your immune system. There's also been some animal testing on reinfection : https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.13.990226v1 https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.13.990226v1
  - joe_the_user 6y ago
    Yes, reinfection is speculation and limits the virus to infect the population is speculation. Beyond the situation of the virus growing exponentially, there are few certainties. I add this point because most of speculative arguments are used to claim allowing the virus infect a large portion of population won't cause much harm.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

heartbreak 6y ago

There’s clearly a lot of false negatives produced by the PCR testing we’re doing nationwide.