OSUmetstud

Wage gains before Covid were decent. But the huge wage gains over the past month are fake because more lower income jobs were loss than higher income jobs. I'm not sure why that's fake news. It seems logical to me.

How was this before Covid? It's the April survey.

I don't dismiss a seasonal component to the virus, but I think we have to be careful about overstating it.

I mean its the equivalent to early November there now. We're seeing bigger outbreaks in warm areas like Ecuador and Brazil. They had an outbreak early on and they did a really great job of containing it. I just don't see how "sun kills it" really works here. They also probably have much different travel dynamics than western Europe and the USA.

They're heading into winter...

Well I think I've seen 50 percent asymptomatic reported in the literature, the princess cruise ship also had that. Certain areas have been very hard hit (northern Italy, NYC) mainly because they've had significant number of people get infected. I just don't think the infection is really widespread across many areas (>5%) due to randomness and the government measures implemented.

What do you attribute that to? Do you think the disease just isn't that bad? It's not that infectious? Randomness?

I mean you do know what the incubation period is? It would actually take time to see an uptick. I am not completely convinced either that we will see a big surge in the state's opening up. Idk. We'll see how important personal risk aversion compared to government measures. We also might be just on the tail end of this disease wave as there could at least be a partial seasonality component.

We don't have any good data on California's fatality rate. We only know it didn't take off there so far like was feared.

That Iran study used people from the same household (why?) and had a very small percentage infected, which is more prone to error than larger numbers. I also think it was pretty clear that was a lot of misrepresentation of the fatalities in Iran (mass graves) and that way more have died than is reported. I haven't seen any large study coming out of California yet in terms of IFR. We've only seen the Santa Clara and Los Angles County testing which also had very small percentages and the test didn't pass scrutiny in terms of specificity.

An outlier in terms of level of disease, not necessarily IFR. I was discussing the NY state in general.

lol no. Literally everyone in this ****ing thread knows the risk increases with age.

Yes, I felt like that was known without me having to say it.

We might be, but from what I've seen the scientific consensus seems higher, more like 0.5-1% IFR. The NY data from yesterday is pretty scary and more like 1% or even perhaps slightly higher if you account for the excessive mortality stats. You cannot compare the IFR of COVID to the CFR of influenza. We only have the CFR of the 1918 flu, we weren't doing antibody testing then, only looking at symptomatic infections.

Yeah, my fault, I didn't follow the convo well. There is something with the oxygen carrying capacity of the blood, but I'm not sure why you think that makes it not a respiratory disease? The 3.4% CFR was reported preliminary from the Chinese data by the WHO, and it still reflects whatever truth you want to believe in the Chinese data. It wasn't reported as the actual fatality rate for the entire population by anyone.

The youtube video docs were using really faulty stats whether you believe it or not.

Oh really?

They're are plenty of shitty tests. Thats real. There specifically been lots of bad antibody tests coming out over the past month. Covid project had reviews of them. Only 1 or 2 of like over a dozen were solid. Private companies and the feds need to get together with a real plan for going forward.

Kinda damned if you do damned if you dont. Need fast but what good are shitty tests? I dont know if a anybody saw but this was the latest NYS antibody study results from today. The test is reported to have 93 to 100 percent specificity.

the testing way more limited in early to mid march on the ramp up compared to what is now. So you'd be more likely to miss something then than now. It also would explain the lack of symmetry in the fatality graphs in many places. Better counts on backside then on the front.

The excessive death stats widely reported are pretty hard to ignore imo. Theres also a few preprints out there discussing it. Estimates of 52k in Italy, for example.

This is probably true everywhere. Limited testing early on in the pandemic.

New Antibody study data from NY as survey is expanded to 15K.

Similar to the policy here in Newfoundland and Labrador. They call it "double bubble" where you can merge with another household as of Thursday. Kinda awkward in some respects since grandparents/parents would have to pick a favorite son or daughter etc. lol.

Meh. It just seems like someone doesn't like the way flu is counted. They explain their methods on the cdc website. They also call it a "flu burden" which is an idea that flu is contributing to the death not necessarily the only or primary cause.