3 ms·

Some possibilities: there is widespread infection from a common source around the same time, and many of those "asymptomatic" inmates aren't going to stay that

by elihu 7y ago

Some possibilities: there is widespread infection from a common source around the same time, and many of those "asymptomatic" inmates aren't going to stay that way; the test has false positives; the population of this prison is comprised mostly of people who tend to be asymptomatic carriers (for example, if most prisoners are in their early 20's); COVID-19 has a lot more asymptomatic carriers than we thought.

greedo 7y ago
It's 4 prisons. The odds of there being one Typhoid Mary is unlikely.
ooobit2 7y ago
We've had approximately 5 months and millions of transmissions for a virus with an RO of approx. 5-6 to mutate. I'm going to bet these people are not asymptomatic. I'm instead hedging my bet on them having a variant that causes cardiovascular damage, and they're a common cold or some other correlative health event away from a rapid decline in health.
redis_mlc 7y ago
Or, you know, stop rejecting data that doesn't reinforce your view that the sky is falling. Because it isn't. Around half of SF has been exposed to corona at this point, yet the hospitals are basically empty and the governor gave away 500 ventilators last month because we don't need many. HN is about as accepting of scientific data as Fox news at this point. If you're one of the sheeple that believes the falsehood that corona is the end of the world, please ask me some questions. AMA.
- AlexCoventry 7y ago
  Were the tests described in this article PCR- or antibody-based?
- sadfklsjlkjwt 7y ago
  Where do get the idea that half of SF has been exposed?
- IAmEveryone 7y ago
  > Around half of SF Yeah, that doesn't work. If 50% of SF had been infected and 22 died the fatality rate would be 22 / (0.5 * 800,000) = 0.0055%. With that fatality rate, 11,500 / 0.0055% = 209 million need to be infected in New York City to explain their death count, or about 25 times the population. More intuitively, because you seem to prefer arguments without actual numbers: if half of the population in SF have been infected, that limits the worst case at double what SF is experiencing. But it is entirely obvious that many regions all over the world are doing far worse, disproving that notion. So here's your question: - how do you make these numbers work? And one extra: - Do you see the irony of complaining about a lack of scientific rigour in a post that is almost completely emotional? I. e. "sheeple", "Fox News", "basically empty"...

by elihu 7y ago

greedo 7y ago

It's 4 prisons. The odds of there being one Typhoid Mary is unlikely.

ooobit2 7y ago

We've had approximately 5 months and millions of transmissions for a virus with an RO of approx. 5-6 to mutate. I'm going to bet these people are not asymptomatic. I'm instead hedging my bet on them having a variant that causes cardiovascular damage, and they're a common cold or some other correlative health event away from a rapid decline in health.

redis_mlc 7y ago

Or, you know, stop rejecting data that doesn't reinforce your view that the sky is falling. Because it isn't. Around half of SF has been exposed to corona at this point, yet the hospitals are basically empty and the governor gave away 500 ventilators last month because we don't need many. HN is about as accepting of scientific data as Fox news at this point. If you're one of the sheeple that believes the falsehood that corona is the end of the world, please ask me some questions. AMA.

AlexCoventry 7y ago
Were the tests described in this article PCR- or antibody-based?
sadfklsjlkjwt 7y ago
Where do get the idea that half of SF has been exposed?
IAmEveryone 7y ago
> Around half of SF Yeah, that doesn't work. If 50% of SF had been infected and 22 died the fatality rate would be 22 / (0.5 * 800,000) = 0.0055%. With that fatality rate, 11,500 / 0.0055% = 209 million need to be infected in New York City to explain their death count, or about 25 times the population. More intuitively, because you seem to prefer arguments without actual numbers: if half of the population in SF have been infected, that limits the worst case at double what SF is experiencing. But it is entirely obvious that many regions all over the world are doing far worse, disproving that notion. So here's your question: - how do you make these numbers work? And one extra: - Do you see the irony of complaining about a lack of scientific rigour in a post that is almost completely emotional? I. e. "sheeple", "Fox News", "basically empty"...