3 ms·
NYC has had ~141,000 infections confirmed. If the high end of this study held for NYC (50x), then the true infection count would be around 7M. That isn't impos
by timr 7y ago
NYC has had ~141,000 infections confirmed. If the high end of this study held for NYC (50x), then the true infection count would be around 7M.
That isn't impossible at all, given that the population of NYC is around 8.8M people. It would mean that the city is approaching herd immunity.
(I don't personally think the ratio will be as high in NYC as in LA, but that's just a hunch based on the higher testing rate.)
- eloff 7y agoThat's basically the top end of the estimate of what is theoretically possible without a lockdown and infinite time. I just don't buy that it is already maxed out like that.
- timr 7y agoIt's the top end estimate from the study. Even if you take the low-end estimate (~30x), there would be 4.2M cases, which is still ~50% of the New York population. Basically, you're just saying that you don't want to believe what they're saying, therefore it's hard to believe. But there's nothing illogical or impossible about it in the slightest.
- eloff 7y agoEven 50% is hard to believe. Illogical or impossible, no. Improbable, I think so.
- DeonPenny 7y agoYou keep making assumption. You have to concluded the lock-down did nothing, has done nothing, and hasn't prevented any infections. You can make assumption because the numbers don't align to what you assumed they'd be.
- vkou 7y agoIf what you're saying is true, then the NYC death rate will drop to zero in three weeks. I am willing to bet the farm that it won't.