Semi-OT: Coronavirus (COVID-19) Discussion Thread

[bidde]

BUT they haven't done the antibody test for all New York residents that are (unconfirmed cases). If they test every New York resident that is (unconfirmed case), The antibody number will be higher than 13.9% postiive or 2.7 million. 3000 people is not close to millions and millions of New York residents.

How would you know?

[dhsilv2]

Big news out of New York from Cuomo's presser today. Video here:

Watch on YouTube

They just got the first results of their 3,000-person state antibody test. In the video you can see all the data, including race and age and region breakdowns. Results are preliminary and I think the study is still going on (or results still being worked on). Tests were taken of random (pretty sure they were random) people out at grocery stores and "big box" stores in 19 counties and 40 localities. Seems much better in the screening process than like the Stanford test.

Preliminary results:

- 13.9% of those tested were positive for Covid antibodies. This equates to 2.7 million people in the state having had the virus
- NYC had a positive antibody rate of 21.2%, highest in the state
- Initial IFR = 0.5% (15.5K/2.7M)

The IFR, as Cuomo says, will change (get higher) because it does not include at-home deaths or nursing home deaths, which will be counted later. And there will just be, overall, more fatalities to come in the days ahead, as well. From hospitals.

Let's say that the NY fatality number gets to 25,000. Divide that by 2.7M apparent infections (although this number probably also will go up) and you get around a 0.9% IFR. Still a very serious virus, but better than the current CFR for New York which is about 15.5K/257,217 cases = 6.0%.

The big headline for the study is the massive percent positive for the state and for NYC, as well as this equating to around 2.7M infected in the state. This changes the picture of things dramatically.

I wasn't paying much attention to the 6%, so for me this is worse than I expected or at least I hoped. Cuomo was using the state wide deaths, if you take the data from NYC (which also lists probable cases) you get to 0.85% IFR. If you go to excess deaths, you are above 1%...

https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/doh/downloads/pdf/imm/covid-19-deaths-confirmed-probable-daily-04222020.pdf

And don't new yorkers on average walk WAY more than most americans AND aren't they skewed younger? NYC that is, not the state.That means in areas....say the south, we'd be looking at worse outcomes?

[Fairview4Life]

Yeah, this sucks.

Read on Twitter

[dhsilv2]

Big news out of New York from Cuomo's presser today. Video here:

Watch on YouTube

They just got the first results of their 3,000-person state antibody test. In the video you can see all the data, including race and age and region breakdowns. Results are preliminary and I think the study is still going on (or results still being worked on). Tests were taken of random (pretty sure they were random) people out at grocery stores and "big box" stores in 19 counties and 40 localities. Seems much better in the screening process than like the Stanford test.

Preliminary results:

- 13.9% of those tested were positive for Covid antibodies. This equates to 2.7 million people in the state having had the virus
- NYC had a positive antibody rate of 21.2%, highest in the state
- Initial IFR = 0.5% (15.5K/2.7M)

The IFR, as Cuomo says, will change (get higher) because it does not include at-home deaths or nursing home deaths, which will be counted later. And there will just be, overall, more fatalities to come in the days ahead, as well. From hospitals.

Let's say that the NY fatality number gets to 25,000. Divide that by 2.7M apparent infections (although this number probably also will go up) and you get around a 0.9% IFR. Still a very serious virus, but better than the current CFR for New York which is about 15.5K/257,217 cases = 6.0%.

The big headline for the study is the massive percent positive for the state and for NYC, as well as this equating to around 2.7M infected in the state. This changes the picture of things dramatically.

BUT they haven't done the antibody test for all New York residents that are (unconfirmed cases). If they test every New York resident that is (unconfirmed case), The antibody number will be higher than 13.9% postiive or 2.7 million. 3000 people is not close to millions and millions of New York residents.

3000 is WAY in excess of what's needed in a simple random sample to have an EXTREMELY high accuracy. That said, if they got this from people in grocery stores, it might be skewed high as that might be a higher risk group on average. But none the less 3,000 is a MASSIVE sample that should be within 3% +/- assuming it's properly conducted.

In short, if 3k doesn't make you go "holy crap that's a huge sample size", you might need to go read up on stats.

[Trader_Joe]

Yeah and that was quite despicable if them to the point where it borders on something that should be illegal. Like if you are an elected official w/ control over things that will greatly effect the market, you shouldn’t be able to benefit off it.

Pretty much insider trading. I thought at least one person was being investigated.

They don't have really much control if at all and frankly I don't think this would come close to insider trading. It's perfectly legal to trade based on the information out there and it was ALL out there. Had they SHORTED the market, that might be a bit more questionable, but selling? Again, anyone watching knew there was significant downsize risk and that the market was high (if not to be blunt grossly over valued).

I thought their selling came after an internal Covid briefing that the public wasn't privy to and even 1 of them reassured us all was well with the world and markets right around when they sold, but I maybe I'm remembering incorrectly.

[HotRocks34]

And don't new yorkers on average walk WAY more than most americans AND aren't they screwed younger? NYC that is, not the state.That means in areas....say the south, we'd be looking at worse outcomes?

I honestly don't know. Good questions, though.

I think, as someone said before, the relatively colder weather and high density of NYC probably didn't help them much (and NY state also relatively cold). I think I saw that some believe the subways were a big spreader, but not sure.

Having lived in California, that state is a car state. Except for BART (subway) in the Bay Area. That probably helped slow the spread. You have to have a car to go anywhere in California. Social distancing is pretty much built in.

[nymets1]

Big news out of New York from Cuomo's presser today. Video here:

Watch on YouTube

They just got the first results of their 3,000-person state antibody test. In the video you can see all the data, including race and age and region breakdowns. Results are preliminary and I think the study is still going on (or results still being worked on). Tests were taken of random (pretty sure they were random) people out at grocery stores and "big box" stores in 19 counties and 40 localities. Seems much better in the screening process than like the Stanford test.

Preliminary results:

- 13.9% of those tested were positive for Covid antibodies. This equates to 2.7 million people in the state having had the virus
- NYC had a positive antibody rate of 21.2%, highest in the state
- Initial IFR = 0.5% (15.5K/2.7M)

The IFR, as Cuomo says, will change (get higher) because it does not include at-home deaths or nursing home deaths, which will be counted later. And there will just be, overall, more fatalities to come in the days ahead, as well. From hospitals.

Let's say that the NY fatality number gets to 25,000. Divide that by 2.7M apparent infections (although this number probably also will go up) and you get around a 0.9% IFR. Still a very serious virus, but better than the current CFR for New York which is about 15.5K/257,217 cases = 6.0%.

The big headline for the study is the massive percent positive for the state and for NYC, as well as this equating to around 2.7M infected in the state. This changes the picture of things dramatically.

BUT they haven't done the antibody test for all New York residents that are (unconfirmed cases). If they test every New York resident that is (unconfirmed case), The antibody number will be higher than 13.9% postiive or 2.7 million. 3000 people is not close to millions and millions of New York residents.

3000 is WAY in excess of what's needed in a simple random sample to have an EXTREMELY high accuracy. That said, if they got this from people in grocery stores, it might be skewed high as that might be a higher risk group on average. But none the less 3,000 is a MASSIVE sample that should be within 3% +/- assuming it's properly conducted.

In short, if 3k doesn't make you go "holy crap that's a huge sample size", you might need to go read up on stats.

They need to keep doing antibody tests for everybody that's an (unconfirmed case). If your New York, you can't say well when we are happy with the 3000 people and now we are going to stop doing antibody tests in New York. Even more now for New York, This is when you want to push and push and push to try to get every New York the antibody test if they are (unconfirmed case). Massachussets and California the other 2 states that I know of that have started their antibody test, They should want to push and push and push to get every Massachussets and California tested for antibody that's (unconfirmed case).

[dhsilv2]

Pretty much insider trading. I thought at least one person was being investigated.

They don't have really much control if at all and frankly I don't think this would come close to insider trading. It's perfectly legal to trade based on the information out there and it was ALL out there. Had they SHORTED the market, that might be a bit more questionable, but selling? Again, anyone watching knew there was significant downsize risk and that the market was high (if not to be blunt grossly over valued).

I thought their selling came after an internal Covid briefing that the public wasn't privy to and even 1 of them reassured us all was well with the world and markets right around when they sold, but I maybe I'm remembering incorrectly.

If there's enough information out there, even if you also have some inside information, it isn't insider trading. I didn't come up with that and I forget the stupid term for it, but I think anyone would have been more than able to use that defense give the data out there. Now, if I recall only 1 of these people was actually actively trading. These are rich people, they have people managing their money. If I'd been a money manager for a wealthy person by February I'd have without a doubt been looking to get out of hotels and airlines for example. Especially given these are ALSO older individuals who likely don't want higher risk positions. Now, I'm not a money manager and mostly deal with currency and debt exposure in my day to day so take my opinion with the qualifier, I'm not an expert in personal investment nor do I claim to be.

[dhsilv2]

They need to keep doing antibody tests for everybody that's an (unconfirmed case). If your New York, you can't say well when we are happy with the 3000 people and now we are going to stop doing antibody tests in New York. Even more now for New York, This is when you want to push and push and push to try to get every New York the antibody test if they are (unconfirmed case). Massachussets and California the other 2 states that I know of that have started their antibody test, They should want to push and push and push to get every Massachussets and California tested for antibody that's (unconfirmed case).

Getting everyone tested doesn't seem prudent. That isn't to say they stop testing either but in terms of anti body tests sampling makes perfect sense. We need more tests to know who has it actively and can spread it, now if the tests are one in the same (not sure if they are?) then test on.

[bidde]

And don't new yorkers on average walk WAY more than most americans AND aren't they screwed younger? NYC that is, not the state.That means in areas....say the south, we'd be looking at worse outcomes?

I'm not sure about how New Yorkers compare to the rest of the States. You could also argue that outcomes in New York City have been worse, because the hospital system was definitely at it's limit or argue that pollution in a big city increases the IFR and so on.
I wouldn't try to read too much into this result. It's in line with some of the estimates that we were working with for a while now. The stuff about 0.1% - 0.3% that some people were pushing recently looks even more questionable now. If someone was looking at case fatality rates, they can stop doing that now.

3000 is WAY in excess of what's needed in a simple random sample to have an EXTREMELY high accuracy. That said, if they got this from people in grocery stores, it might be skewed high as that might be a higher risk group on average. But none the less 3,000 is a MASSIVE sample that should be within 3% +/- assuming it's properly conducted.

In short, if 3k doesn't make you go "holy crap that's a huge sample size", you might need to go read up on stats.

Most people get groceries, right? Sure, you are oversampling people that go shopping more frequently, but people that go for groceries less frequently probably include doctors, nurses and first responders that work crazy hours and are a super high risk group. Don't think it's clear that there would be a bias in one direction or the other.

[HollowEarth]

As an outside observer this seems very true. I have been watching snippets of both Fox and Friends and CNN (not for extended periods, there are limits to my curiosity) and both seem agenda driven, and more interested in praising or criticising Trump’s handling of the crisis than in what is actually transpiring.

I don't watch CNN for the same reason I don't ESPN. They take objective information, and manipulate it in a way to make you feel an emotion, because that's how you grab an audience's attention, by making them feel something through your storytelling. They'll take the big picture, and then selectively take bits and pieces of it to form a narrative. CNN is explicit with this, but not to the extent of Fox who might as well be considered state propaganda.

All that being said I don't see how anyone informed on this can say that Trump's handling of this has been anything short of a disaster. There's a whole laundry list to go through, but stealing medical supplies from states, and selling them to private companies, who pit states against each other in a bidding war so they can buy something they already paid for, is the most irresponsible act I've ever seen a president commit in my lifetime. The states are all out here fending for themselves with little help of the federal government.

I wasn’t aware he did the bolded. That’s awful if true.

When I watch Trump he seems like someone flying by the seat of their pants during a completely awful situation - but at the same time having to deal w/ an unprecedentedly hostile press that wants to accuse and blame him for everything cause they have an obvious agenda. I honestly want to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he’s doing the best he can and genuinely wants to do the right thing.

Plus I’m not convinced any of the other leaders can and would have done a better job either. Not like all kinds of Democrats were screaming these genious plans filled w/ foresight re: stopping the virus in January or February, were they?

I wish the media would stop being so agenda driven and actually just do objective reporting like they used to. And both sides would start working together and stop being so accusatory and nasty. People put this partisan **** aside for at least a little bit during 9/11 - sad they don’t seem willing to do that now.

Here's an article about guys who are getting their medical supplies confsicated by the federal government:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/04/21/indutex-usa-says-fema-seized-n-95-respirators-national-stockpile/2996256001/

And here's a governor explaining the federal government's bizarre distribution system where states have to bid against each other to buy those supplies from private businesses:

Read on Twitter

?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fd-2171353241951198186.ampproject.net%2F2004172112280%2Fframe.html

[HotRocks34]

Haven't read the article here, just the headline. Still, it sounds good.

Read on Twitter

[sfernald]

I don't watch CNN for the same reason I don't ESPN. They take objective information, and manipulate it in a way to make you feel an emotion, because that's how you grab an audience's attention, by making them feel something through your storytelling. They'll take the big picture, and then selectively take bits and pieces of it to form a narrative. CNN is explicit with this, but not to the extent of Fox who might as well be considered state propaganda.

All that being said I don't see how anyone informed on this can say that Trump's handling of this has been anything short of a disaster. There's a whole laundry list to go through, but stealing medical supplies from states, and selling them to private companies, who pit states against each other in a bidding war so they can buy something they already paid for, is the most irresponsible act I've ever seen a president commit in my lifetime. The states are all out here fending for themselves with little help of the federal government.

I wasn’t aware he did the bolded. That’s awful if true.

When I watch Trump he seems like someone flying by the seat of their pants during a completely awful situation - but at the same time having to deal w/ an unprecedentedly hostile press that wants to accuse and blame him for everything cause they have an obvious agenda. I honestly want to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he’s doing the best he can and genuinely wants to do the right thing.

Plus I’m not convinced any of the other leaders can and would have done a better job either. Not like all kinds of Democrats were screaming these genious plans filled w/ foresight re: stopping the virus in January or February, were they?

I wish the media would stop being so agenda driven and actually just do objective reporting like they used to. And both sides would start working together and stop being so accusatory and nasty. People put this partisan **** aside for at least a little bit during 9/11 - sad they don’t seem willing to do that now.

Here's an article about guys who are getting their medical supplies confsicated by the federal government:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/04/21/indutex-usa-says-fema-seized-n-95-respirators-national-stockpile/2996256001/

And here's a governor explaining the federal government's bizarre distribution system where states have to bid against each other to buy those supplies from private businesses:

Read on Twitter

?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fd-2171353241951198186.ampproject.net%2F2004172112280%2Fframe.html

Who is making the money with this grift?

[NY 567]

If the death rate for this thing is under 1%, I think we need to start considering opening things back up. It doesn't appear as deadly as once thought. I don't think you collapse society over this.

[Fairview4Life]

If the death rate for this thing is under 1%, I think we need to start considering opening things back up. It doesn't appear as deadly as once thought. I don't think you collapse society over this.

1% is a huge number.

[HotRocks34]

Read on Twitter

[mademan]

Haven't read the article here, just the headline. Still, it sounds good.

Read on Twitter

lmao. Theyre talking about a vaccine being ready something like 6-8 months from the theoretical design period. Literally, and i mean actually literally, not the literally a lot of people use that doesnt mean literally, but actually literally, impossible for a medication to be cleared as safe in that kind of time frame. Thats insane

[bidde]

If the death rate for this thing is under 1%, I think we need to start considering opening things back up. It doesn't appear as deadly as once thought. I don't think you collapse society over this.

The study that predicted 1.5 million to 2.2 million deaths in the US without social distancing assumed that the death rate is 0.9%. The numbers out of New York are very much in line with that assumption.

[Sedale Threatt]

If the death rate for this thing is under 1%, I think we need to start considering opening things back up. It doesn't appear as deadly as once thought. I don't think you collapse society over this.

1% is a huge number.

If nothing else, this pandemic has shown that a crap ton of people don't have even a basic grasp of math.

[HotRocks34]

Supposedly late in May there will be a golf contest between duos of (some combo) Tiger Woods, Phil Mickelson, Tom Brady and Peyton Manning. It's for Covid relief:

https://www.espn.com/golf/story/_/id/29084168/tiger-woods-phil-mickelson-tom-brady-peyton-manning-play-golf-match

Location currently "undisclosed."

GIven that three of the four participants live in Florida (I think only Manning does not), I think we can all safely assume where this will be held.