I realize the fear freak knuckle draggers here avoid context and stick to mainstream propaganda to keep their brains sufficiently washed- but still there is reality out there beyond your endless stream of lies:
https://twitter.com/Humble_Analysis/status/1326969018134085632
Same sh*t the media peddled during the Sunbelt outbreak. The non-Covid hospital census will decline by itself and hospitals cancel procedures. And will rise back organically, as the covid load recedes. Any attempt to help hospitals by scaring people will increase deaths.
I apologize in advance to all of you fear mongers for providing more context- but please keep that mask on and keep those bacterial colonies and fungal colonies close to your breathe:
KaareV wrote:
joed1rt wrote:
Not even close? Blowing by numbers seen in the spring? Maybe confirmed case numbers, but not even close to actual numbers. In the spring they were only testing people with symptoms severe enough to require hospitalization. Now they're testing asymptomatic individuals. In the spring, New York had 1,000 people a day dying. Now they are losing 20 a day (using very liberal definitions of what is classified as a COVID death). So, with death at 2% of what they were in the spring, there might be herd immunity (which doesn't mean no deaths). Here is a breakdown of where deaths (and by default actual case levels) were in the spring versus where they are now and the estimated percentage of the population that has been exposed to COVID based upon an IFR of 0.26%.
NY deaths per day at peak @ 1,000. Deaths per day recently @ 20 est. exposure 67%
MA deaths per day at peak @ 200, Deaths per day recently @ 20 est. exposure 57%
NJ deaths per day at peak @ 400, Deaths per day recently @ 20 est. exposure 72%
The reason why actual cases are increasing 6-16 times faster on a per capita basis in places like Montana, Wyoming, South Dakota and North Dakota is because the exposure rate in those states is closer to 10-35% and they are fully into heating season. Masks help, but a lot of the spread doesn't occur at work or at school where people typically wear masks. Most of it occurs at small gatherings of family and friends when people aren't distancing and aren't wearing masks. Those happen in all states. The reasons the spread is higher in some states than others are due to climate, masks and the acquired level of immunity in a particular state or area. Whether by exposure to the wild virus or by vaccine, the only solution is herd immunity. The question is how much debt a nation can afford to go into shutting down large portions of their economy waiting for a vaccine. Central banks cannot afford to continue to buy up the debt.
Interesting. There might be - close to - herd immunity in Queens, Brooklyn, Bronx etc. But not upstate. And not even close to in most parts of USA. Trying to achieve it, without a vaccine might have uintended consequences, also for the economy. Swedens strategy did not work, and it didn't help their economy very much, compared to their neighbors. Now the situation in Sweden is desperate again. They are imposing a lot of restrictions and will be close to a lockdown, whether they like it or not. Because they know what is coming three/four weeks from now. And it will hurt their economy for the second time. This is an unsolved dilemma. Both USA and Sweden reacted too slow. They had the chance, but blew it.
Want more proof of herd immunity in New York City? Over the past 10 days, deaths in the five boroughs have gone up 0.4%. My town (after 4 months of masks mandates, virtual schools and bans on gathering stricter than those in New York City), deaths increased by 20% over the same period in spite of less public transportation ridership, far less population density and social interactions, etc. Then de Blasio goes and shuts down schools completely unnecessarily. Ironically, this move will likely kill more lives than it will save as kids will be watched by grandparents while their parents try to stay solvent.
Whether to close down schools or not and other restrictions.? We will never know exactly before this is over. So may be de Blasio is doing just the right thing, or may be not. Just now from the experiences over here, well, probably. And my hypothesis about Queens etc. Doesn't look like it holds water. There is a lot of dilemmas. But when people go on and give their opponents bad motives then there is no meaningful discussion. Take a look here. This is how it is done:https://www.wsj.com/articles/finland-and-norway-avoid-covid-19-lockdowns-but-keep-the-virus-at-bay-11605704407 in some countries over here,
The Unkle wrote:
wutt wrote:
[quote]The Unkle wrote:
This study is about symptoms ON THE DAY OF THE TEST (i.e. asymptomatic transmission). It is nothing to do with someone having symptoms throughout the days/weeks they have the illness. It is purely about transmission so don't use it as something it is not.
Not so. Read the article.
Here:
Now, a new study by researchers at the University College London revealed that 86 percent of people who tested positive for COVID-19 did not have virus symptoms, such as cough, fever, and loss of taste or smell. The study findings, collected by the Office for National Statistics, the U.K. statistics body, highlight the role of asymptomatic patients in the spread of the virus.
The data collecting body gathered information about coronavirus testing from thousands of British households during the pandemic—the asked households whether they developed symptoms or not.
You are wrong.
Read the study i.e. click on the link.
Of the 115 people who tested positive with SARS-CoV-2, 16 or 13.9 percent reported symptoms, while 99 people or 86.1 percent of the patients, did not report any specific symptoms on the day of the test.
The study was done to look at asymptomatic transmission.
“The fact that so many people who tested positive were asymptomatic on the day of a positive test result calls for a change to future testing strategies. More widespread testing will help to capture “silent” transmission and potentially prevent future outbreaks,” Professor Irene Petersen from UCL Epidemiology & Health Care, said.
Results: In total, there were 36,061 individuals with a SARS-CoV-2 test between 26 April and 27 June 2020. Of these, 625 (1.7%) reported symptoms on the day of the test. There were 115 (0.32%) with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result. Of the 115, there were 27 (23.5%) who were symptomatic and 88 (76.5%) who were asymptomatic on the day of the test.
I mean how many times does the study itself have to say ON THE DAY of the test and explain it in their methodology for you to believe it?
Another record for deaths in North Dakota...37. On a per capita basis, it is equivalent to over 16k dead in the US and almost 1000 in New York. Just think about that, North Dakota now has the number of deaths New York did back in March. The difference? Increased testing, sparsely populated regions, younger population, more knowledge on how to deal with the virus(PPE, hospital equipment, dangerous events for super-spreaders) and yet North Dakota still let it get here.
It's a highly contagious virus and vulnerable populations will die, while most will survive. What cannot be lost is the impact of lockdowns on lives. In North Dakota, the unemployment rate has been under 5% for the entire pandemic (currently it is at 4.8% and that is taking into account the negative impact low oil prices have had on their energy sector). Meanwhile, New York's has been over 10% for most of the pandemic and just dropped to 9.6% in October, which is 5.8% higher than it was last October. What is the economic impact of the loss of 1,007,600 jobs on the New York economy, on lives of the unemployed (spousal abuse, suicide, drug abuse, loss of health care, etc.), on food security, on businesses, on poor kids that are receiving a substandard education and on future generations of New Yorkers who will have to pay off the debt accumulated during the punitive shutdowns? Shutdowns are far more damaging than the virus. The great irony is that New York is likely at a level of herd immunity (especially New York City) that they will not have large increases in deaths, so the shutdowns are largely unnecessary in NYC.
joedurty wrote:
The great irony is that New York is likely at a level of herd immunity (especially New York City) that they will not have large increases in deaths, so the shutdowns are largely unnecessary in NYC.
https://www.labor.ny.gov/stats/pressreleases/pruistat.shtm
Maybe one or two neighborhoods in NYC are remotely close to herd immunity.
See antibody positivity rates if you scroll down here:
https://gothamist.com/news/coronavirus-statistics-tracking-epidemic-new-yorkPretty much all of the five buroughs are close to herd immunity. Here is a comparison between fatality increases between New York City, New York State, and Colorado over the period from November 5-21.
Location New Deaths Population New Deaths per million
New York 420 19,445,194 21.6
NYC 88 8,319,705 10.6
Colorado 434 5,758,736 75.4
So the reason that New York City (in spite of having less restrictive lockdown measures at this point than Colorado, more social interactions and a denser population) is experiencing 1/7th the number of deaths as Colorado is tied to herd immunity (based upon an IFR of 0.26%, approximately 77.2% of New York City has had COVID at this point, compared to 18.8% of Colorado). Basically, there are 4 times as many individuals without antibodies or t-cells in Colorado than New York on a per capita basis, which is why the growth in Colorado is so much greater than in New York right now.
joedurty wrote:
Pretty much all of the five buroughs are close to herd immunity. Here is a comparison between fatality increases between New York City, New York State, and Colorado over the period from November 5-21.
Location New Deaths Population New Deaths per million
New York 420 19,445,194 21.6
NYC 88 8,319,705 10.6
Colorado 434 5,758,736 75.4
So the reason that New York City (in spite of having less restrictive lockdown measures at this point than Colorado, more social interactions and a denser population) is experiencing 1/7th the number of deaths as Colorado is tied to herd immunity (based upon an IFR of 0.26%, approximately 77.2% of New York City has had COVID at this point, compared to 18.8% of Colorado). Basically, there are 4 times as many individuals without antibodies or t-cells in Colorado than New York on a per capita basis, which is why the growth in Colorado is so much greater than in New York right now.
There's not a single zipcode in NYC that has seen close 77% antibody positivity. That number is so divorced from reality it's clear you haven't done more than a cursory dogma-filtered analysis of the situation.
Next denier up!
coronafreedom. wrote:
Another record for deaths in North Dakota...37. On a per capita basis, it is equivalent to over 16k dead in the US and almost 1000 in New York.
I think the correct per capita/per million comparison to NYC would be about 400.
Interestingly, ND still ranks behind Rhode Island in terms of per capita/per million deaths. Yet no hand-winging in the media about RI - wonder why? lol
Obviously the numbers get skewed quite a bit with relatively small populations - as people in San Marino can attest.
Harambe wrote:
joedurty wrote:
Pretty much all of the five buroughs are close to herd immunity. Here is a comparison between fatality increases between New York City, New York State, and Colorado over the period from November 5-21.
Location New Deaths Population New Deaths per million
New York 420 19,445,194 21.6
NYC 88 8,319,705 10.6
Colorado 434 5,758,736 75.4
So the reason that New York City (in spite of having less restrictive lockdown measures at this point than Colorado, more social interactions and a denser population) is experiencing 1/7th the number of deaths as Colorado is tied to herd immunity (based upon an IFR of 0.26%, approximately 77.2% of New York City has had COVID at this point, compared to 18.8% of Colorado). Basically, there are 4 times as many individuals without antibodies or t-cells in Colorado than New York on a per capita basis, which is why the growth in Colorado is so much greater than in New York right now.
There's not a single zipcode in NYC that has seen close 77% antibody positivity. That number is so divorced from reality it's clear you haven't done more than a cursory dogma-filtered analysis of the situation.
Next denier up!
Look at your own chart. The antibody level was much higher initially. The only reason it is not as high today is because antibody levels drop below levels that trigger the test even when there is still immunity. The immunity is there even though the tests were not picking it up. This has been proven by studies at UCLA and Vanderbilt where they found half of known positives did not have sufficient antibody levels to trigger the test two months post facto (in spite of the fact that almost none have been re-infected 9 months later). Re-infection is exceedingly rare. Immunity appears to be long lasting. New York is essentially shut down for no real reason at this point. Stop living in fear.
The reason why the positivity rate was so high early on was that tests were an extremely short supply so the only people who were tested were people whose Physicians felt they had an extremely high probability of having Covid. That number did not in any way shape or form represent the general population. It Appears that the data from NY was collected fairly shortly after the initial wave(before the end of June), so the vast majority of infected people probably still had enough antibodies to test positive.
joedurty wrote:
So the reason that New York City (in spite of having less restrictive lockdown measures at this point than Colorado, more social interactions and a denser population) is experiencing 1/7th the number of deaths as Colorado is tied to herd immunity (based upon an IFR of 0.26%, approximately 77.2% of New York City has had COVID at this point, compared to 18.8% of Colorado).
Applying the current IFR estimate to March-April deaths to back into total infection rates is more than a little sketchy given that detection and treatment protocols have clearly improved since then.
You are correct. The IFR has improved. Recent studies have it at 0.15%-0.23%.