5 ms·

27% of people have antibodies, thus 2.4 million were infected. 23k deaths, thus a 1% mortality rate. I guess this the final nail in the "this is just a flu" .

by raducu 6y ago

sandworm101 6y ago
>> 27% of people have antibodies, thus 2.4 million were infected. The immune system isn't just about antibodies. having antibodies, for this disease, means you were exposed relatively recently. People who had the disease months ago are now showing a lack of antibodies. That doesn't mean that their immune system isn't primed for this disease, just that they currently do not display antibodies in their bloodstream. Thus it is likely many more than 2.4million americans have been infected/exposed, potentially drawing down the death rate well below 1%.
- WoodenChair 6y ago
  > Thus it is likely many more than 2.4million americans have been infected/exposed, potentially drawing down the death rate well below 1%. The parent poster is not saying 2.4 million Americans were infected. The poster is saying 2.4 million New Yorkers were infected.
StanislavPetrov 6y ago
Agree completely that this is far more dangerous and deadly than the flu (especially as a New Yorker who knows multiple people who have died from this disease). That being said, there is some selection bias in these results as those who were tested were much more likely to have been infected. These tests were not done in randomly selected people. Most who get tested have reason to believe they were infected (or were at high risk for having been infected). The fact that the 27% of the group of high risk people who chose to get tested showed they had the disease doesn't mean that 27% of all New Yorkers had the disease.
- nimish 6y ago
  Mortality is also highly age dependent. It mostly reflects that the virus ripped through care facilities since nobody isolated them in time.
- raducu 6y ago
  You are right, I missed that the number of tests was ~1 million, no way that was randon testing. So, probably the mortality rate is higher. I wonder if there is any bayesian tricks to estimate the infection range given 1/8 people got tested, regardless of selection bias. edit: actually the overall deatheate could be lower, because we know the number of deaths, but not the exact number of infected -- if overall the infection rate is lower then 27%, the deathrate is lower than 1%.
  - StanislavPetrov 6y ago
    Nobody is suggesting the testing was random. The overall death rate and infection right could be either higher or lower, my only point is that you can't draw conclusions about the total population on a testing sample that wasn't random (and didn't try to be).
  - rumanator 6y ago
    > because we know the number of deaths We only know estimates of the number of deaths. The correct number lies somewhere between the official number of covid19 fatalities and the total number of deaths during the same period, because one hand you have excessive mortality and on the other hand you have changes to the baseline due to changes in behavioral patterns. Excessive mortality are higher than officially recognized covid19 deaths and serve as a more accurate proxy for real covid19 deaths, but at the same time the baseline mortality might vary as well.
    - raducu 6y ago
      Do you know any numbers for that excessive mortality in NYC? That would be pretty interesting.
AuryGlenz 6y ago
For a good percentage of the population it is about as deadly as the flu though, perhaps even less. For a smaller percentage of people it’s far more deadly than the flu. I still think we could have gotten through this quicker if we didn’t lock down the young and healthy, while taking extra care to keep at risk populations safe.
- tootie 6y ago
  Mortality rates for flu are correlated with very similar risk factors as COVID-19 and COVID is more deadly by an order of magnitude overall. Also, it is now becoming clearer that children are just as susceptible to adults and can harbor substantial infections and be highly contagious even without symptoms. https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/08/20/children-coronavirus-spread-transmission/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/08/20/children-co...
  - DuskStar 6y ago
    IIRC the CDC said that COVID-19 was actually less dangerous for people under 30 than the flu is. Of course, the CDC has not exactly covered itself in glory this year, so who knows.
- jowiar 6y ago
  There’s a non-death outcome that seems pretty bad and pretty common that’s hit the young and healthy, which is “seriously fucked up for an indeterminate amount of time”. As someone who is decently young and healthy, our lack of understanding of that outcome is what still has me scared of this thing, and why “just let it get everyone get it” feels like a nonstarter.
DuskStar 6y ago
If 27% of the NYC population have antibodies, and half of people infected don't test positive for antibodies (too long after infection, mild infection that was defeated without antibodies, etc), then NYC is at or near herd immunity already. There's a lot of studies saying that antibodies go below detectable levels within 2-3 months, even though that doesn't seem to mean that these people are no longer immune.
- raducu 6y ago
  Yes, but it would be pretty pointless to get yourself tested 3 months after you suspected you had the virus.
  - taeric 6y ago
    Is what I did. Had all symptoms right before shutdowns in Seattle, but they wouldn't test if you didn't transfer from China. Or make a stink. Months later, I was able to get a test. Came back negative. Now I have to wonder if I just waited too long. :(
  - DuskStar 6y ago
    It would also be pretty pointless to rely on people actively seeking out testing for a seroprevalence study. Not exactly a random subset of the population...
oh_sigh 6y ago
No, 27% of people tested had antibodies. This is directly stated in the article.
nradov 6y ago
27% is just a lower bound on infections. Many patients, especially those with less severe symptoms, fail to produce detectible levels of antibodies.
aaron695 6y ago
> 27% of people have antibodies, thus 2.4 million were infected. 23k deaths, thus a 1% mortality rate. 1% would be to high given the data elsewhere. Did the population this study looks at have a death toll of 23k and what was the population exactly? I'd think a top priority in the world would be to tie this number down properly. And this study seems solid. The fact children are a higher infection rate in the study is not good, because it implies the mortality rate is higher again than 1%.

27% of people have antibodies, thus 2.4 million were infected. 23k deaths, thus a 1% mortality rate. I guess this the final nail in the "this is just a flu" .

by raducu 6y ago

27% of people have antibodies, thus 2.4 million were infected. 23k deaths, thus a 1% mortality rate. I guess this the final nail in the "this is just a flu" .

sandworm101 6y ago

>> 27% of people have antibodies, thus 2.4 million were infected. The immune system isn't just about antibodies. having antibodies, for this disease, means you were exposed relatively recently. People who had the disease months ago are now showing a lack of antibodies. That doesn't mean that their immune system isn't primed for this disease, just that they currently do not display antibodies in their bloodstream. Thus it is likely many more than 2.4million americans have been infected/exposed, potentially drawing down the death rate well below 1%.

WoodenChair 6y ago
> Thus it is likely many more than 2.4million americans have been infected/exposed, potentially drawing down the death rate well below 1%. The parent poster is not saying 2.4 million Americans were infected. The poster is saying 2.4 million New Yorkers were infected.

StanislavPetrov 6y ago

Agree completely that this is far more dangerous and deadly than the flu (especially as a New Yorker who knows multiple people who have died from this disease). That being said, there is some selection bias in these results as those who were tested were much more likely to have been infected. These tests were not done in randomly selected people. Most who get tested have reason to believe they were infected (or were at high risk for having been infected). The fact that the 27% of the group of high risk people who chose to get tested showed they had the disease doesn't mean that 27% of all New Yorkers had the disease.

nimish 6y ago
Mortality is also highly age dependent. It mostly reflects that the virus ripped through care facilities since nobody isolated them in time.
raducu 6y ago
You are right, I missed that the number of tests was ~1 million, no way that was randon testing. So, probably the mortality rate is higher. I wonder if there is any bayesian tricks to estimate the infection range given 1/8 people got tested, regardless of selection bias. edit: actually the overall deatheate could be lower, because we know the number of deaths, but not the exact number of infected -- if overall the infection rate is lower then 27%, the deathrate is lower than 1%.
- StanislavPetrov 6y ago
  Nobody is suggesting the testing was random. The overall death rate and infection right could be either higher or lower, my only point is that you can't draw conclusions about the total population on a testing sample that wasn't random (and didn't try to be).
- rumanator 6y ago
  > because we know the number of deaths We only know estimates of the number of deaths. The correct number lies somewhere between the official number of covid19 fatalities and the total number of deaths during the same period, because one hand you have excessive mortality and on the other hand you have changes to the baseline due to changes in behavioral patterns. Excessive mortality are higher than officially recognized covid19 deaths and serve as a more accurate proxy for real covid19 deaths, but at the same time the baseline mortality might vary as well.
  - raducu 6y ago
    Do you know any numbers for that excessive mortality in NYC? That would be pretty interesting.

AuryGlenz 6y ago

For a good percentage of the population it is about as deadly as the flu though, perhaps even less. For a smaller percentage of people it’s far more deadly than the flu. I still think we could have gotten through this quicker if we didn’t lock down the young and healthy, while taking extra care to keep at risk populations safe.

tootie 6y ago
Mortality rates for flu are correlated with very similar risk factors as COVID-19 and COVID is more deadly by an order of magnitude overall. Also, it is now becoming clearer that children are just as susceptible to adults and can harbor substantial infections and be highly contagious even without symptoms. https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/08/20/children-coronavirus-spread-transmission/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/08/20/children-co...
- DuskStar 6y ago
  IIRC the CDC said that COVID-19 was actually less dangerous for people under 30 than the flu is. Of course, the CDC has not exactly covered itself in glory this year, so who knows.
jowiar 6y ago
There’s a non-death outcome that seems pretty bad and pretty common that’s hit the young and healthy, which is “seriously fucked up for an indeterminate amount of time”. As someone who is decently young and healthy, our lack of understanding of that outcome is what still has me scared of this thing, and why “just let it get everyone get it” feels like a nonstarter.

DuskStar 6y ago

If 27% of the NYC population have antibodies, and half of people infected don't test positive for antibodies (too long after infection, mild infection that was defeated without antibodies, etc), then NYC is at or near herd immunity already. There's a lot of studies saying that antibodies go below detectable levels within 2-3 months, even though that doesn't seem to mean that these people are no longer immune.

raducu 6y ago
Yes, but it would be pretty pointless to get yourself tested 3 months after you suspected you had the virus.
- taeric 6y ago
  Is what I did. Had all symptoms right before shutdowns in Seattle, but they wouldn't test if you didn't transfer from China. Or make a stink. Months later, I was able to get a test. Came back negative. Now I have to wonder if I just waited too long. :(
- DuskStar 6y ago
  It would also be pretty pointless to rely on people actively seeking out testing for a seroprevalence study. Not exactly a random subset of the population...

oh_sigh 6y ago

No, 27% of people tested had antibodies. This is directly stated in the article.

nradov 6y ago

27% is just a lower bound on infections. Many patients, especially those with less severe symptoms, fail to produce detectible levels of antibodies.

aaron695 6y ago

> 27% of people have antibodies, thus 2.4 million were infected. 23k deaths, thus a 1% mortality rate. 1% would be to high given the data elsewhere. Did the population this study looks at have a death toll of 23k and what was the population exactly? I'd think a top priority in the world would be to tie this number down properly. And this study seems solid. The fact children are a higher infection rate in the study is not good, because it implies the mortality rate is higher again than 1%.