3 ms·

Your numbers are way off. 25% percent of NYC was seropositive in May. So that works out to about 25k per 100k people. The reported cases have always been just

Your numbers are way off. 25% percent of NYC was seropositive in May. So that works out to about 25k per 100k people. The reported cases have always been just the tip of the iceberg. And we never knew how big the underwater part was. We still down't. Take the current situation, is the disease penetration larger than that in March/April? Most likely not, not even close, yet the reported new cases are about 5x larger.

ghj 6y ago
I don't care how big the underwater part is though. I am just using the case rate as a proxy for when states seem to hit their peak (yes, extremely handwavy). As long at the confirmed cases is within some constant fraction of true number, it will be a decent proxy. This makes sense to me since some x% of the people who get infect will need hospitalization so they will get counted towards the statistics.
- glofish 6y ago
  > I don't care how big the underwater part is though You should care. The disease propagation is all about the "unseen" part. Otherwise the numbers are not comparable at all. Back then we caught 10% of cases, today perhaps 50% Thus you can't extrapolate from old numbers into the new. if anything you'd need to triple the numbers or more
hn_check 6y ago
The most recent, randomized studies of the NYC metro area finds SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in about 14% of participants when they randomly solicit people directly. Prior studies put out ads looking for participants, naturally drawing in people who "had that unexplained thing a few months back". Even when directly appealing to people the participation rate is likely higher among people who suspect they may have had it. We know that testing was very limited early in the outbreak, when NYC was hit, and that it caught only a fraction of the people infected. But all metrics are that there is still a huge victim base in the area. The drop is more likely entirely behavioral.
- glofish 6y ago
  Good to know. My 25% numbers were from an announcement by Cuomo where the report claimed that the sample collection and data processing (corrections) were statistically sound. Even at 14% seropositivity the true number of people that had the virus is likely larger. There are reports that some (many?) people that recover do so without needed antibodies. Working backwards, taking the fairly accepted value of 0.6% fatality rate, the 30K deaths in NYC would indicate around 5 million infections. Now the the NYC fatality rate is likely higher due to Cuomo's mind boggling order regarding nursing homes. Regardless I think it is fair to estimate that the true number of cases in NYC is likely to fall between the reported 400k and the upper limit of 5 million. At 25% seropositivity would be around 2 million, to me sounds believable.

ghj 6y ago

I don't care how big the underwater part is though. I am just using the case rate as a proxy for when states seem to hit their peak (yes, extremely handwavy). As long at the confirmed cases is within some constant fraction of true number, it will be a decent proxy. This makes sense to me since some x% of the people who get infect will need hospitalization so they will get counted towards the statistics.

glofish 6y ago
> I don't care how big the underwater part is though You should care. The disease propagation is all about the "unseen" part. Otherwise the numbers are not comparable at all. Back then we caught 10% of cases, today perhaps 50% Thus you can't extrapolate from old numbers into the new. if anything you'd need to triple the numbers or more

hn_check 6y ago

The most recent, randomized studies of the NYC metro area finds SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in about 14% of participants when they randomly solicit people directly. Prior studies put out ads looking for participants, naturally drawing in people who "had that unexplained thing a few months back". Even when directly appealing to people the participation rate is likely higher among people who suspect they may have had it. We know that testing was very limited early in the outbreak, when NYC was hit, and that it caught only a fraction of the people infected. But all metrics are that there is still a huge victim base in the area. The drop is more likely entirely behavioral.

glofish 6y ago
Good to know. My 25% numbers were from an announcement by Cuomo where the report claimed that the sample collection and data processing (corrections) were statistically sound. Even at 14% seropositivity the true number of people that had the virus is likely larger. There are reports that some (many?) people that recover do so without needed antibodies. Working backwards, taking the fairly accepted value of 0.6% fatality rate, the 30K deaths in NYC would indicate around 5 million infections. Now the the NYC fatality rate is likely higher due to Cuomo's mind boggling order regarding nursing homes. Regardless I think it is fair to estimate that the true number of cases in NYC is likely to fall between the reported 400k and the upper limit of 5 million. At 25% seropositivity would be around 2 million, to me sounds believable.