OSUmetstud

This is all bullshit. We aren't going to purposely give people the virus and we aren't going to lockdown indefinitely. Gradually open and test, trace, isolated, and monitor. It's the method that our govt and governments all over the world are following. Also, in this time, maybe we get more positive treatments that give better outcomes.

You kill like 1-2.5 million Americans with a "herd immunity solution." Insane that anyone would sign off for that willingly.

Lol.

It's actually 12 to 14 times higher... We can't compare asymptomatic infections of COVID to symptomatic infections of influenza. The IFR of the flu is probably closer to 0.06-0.07%.

Im guessing they haven't bothered creating a vaccine for common coronaviruses because they don't kill people... You're sounding really ignorant here, man. There's a single study that isn't peer reviewed that suggests strands with varying virulence. Herd immunity isn't a solution; it's a result.

Great here, but things are pretty bad in Quebec.

They are though, for better or for worse. If it was all about safety from the virus we would just stay locked down until there's a vaccine.

eh...maybe. Its interesting, at least. There's a lot of people who live with their older relatives, how do you deal with that? What is the risk point where it is decided that this person is vulnerable enough to be broken off the general population and dealt with differently?

It would be nice to know what test NYS used. The NY state study is much bigger than anything else we've seen so it should be more accurate even if there is some false positives. You're going to see more problems with the smaller percentages and the smaller test populations. The regional percentages in WNY, CNY, and northern NY would be much more suspect than NYC and NY as a whole because the smaller percentages are going to more affected by false positives.

I saw an interview with Dr. David Katz on Bill Mahar and he seemed to suggest similar, protecting the vulnerable as opposed to a more "carpetbombing" type lockdown policy for everybody. I don't know how you pull of something like that practically speaking.

NYC probable deaths are added later in the day. Most places are not including those in the US.

It would nice to see this data for other cities/states in USA. I guess this stuff isn't always published immediately. That's why I suspect that the original modeling that the admin showed of 100K-240K won't be far off at all. Given that that they never posted timelines on that, I assumed it was the first pandemic wave.

There was a study from Italy that showed the same data. 52K was the estimate vs. 26K the official total. The discrepancy comes from a lack of testing early on in the outbreak. It's very noticeable in southern areas of Italy that didn't have a terrible outbreak like the north, too.

Interesting. I was trying to wrap my head around restaurants vs. hairdressers/barbers. Like which one would be worse for spreading?

Well the probables are a bit more discontinuous since they include cases from weeks ago...the daily confirmed numbers are more indicative of trends. NYC is only place in the state doing that right now. I'm sure there uncounted deaths all over the country.

His numbers are confirmed NYS deaths. Worldometers adds the NYC probable numbers later in the day. It's not some conspiracy lol.

Lol sorry about the lack of zoom.

Anyone know what this might be? It was in quidi vidi lake on a walk today. It seems like it could be a meadow vole but do they swim like this?

Lol. 3.6 percent of upstate ny and 21 percent of NYC. The state and the city is literally the hardest hit area in the entire country. How do you get 20 percent nationwide?

You really dont seem to understand the numbers...

Not exactly a promising finding. Perhaps neutral or disappointing depending on what you thought the fatality rate might be. This would put fatality rate at 0.8 or 0.9 if you include the NYC confirmed and probably deaths.

Cuomo released preliminary antibody data from NY 13.9 percent of NY sample had antibodies 21.2 percent NYC 3.6 percent upstate ny (excluding NYC Rockland, Westchester, Nassau, and Suffolk)

Maybe. That's the first time someone has suggested this...that there is substantial enough mutations to change virulence. I think we have to be careful with the studies out there...theres a lot of info and and much of it hasn't been peer reviewed.

I appreciate the want or need to be optimistic. I think what the numbers tell us is that it hasn't been widespread in many areas yet. I've posted in the new england forum that NYC had 15 times the deaths (real-time) compared to an average flu season in a month...with a wave peak at about 2/3rds the 1918 flu. (60 deaths per week per 100000 vs. 90 deaths per week per 100000) These type of data show me that the virus just isn't that widespread in other areas. The serology findings in southern California are interesting but idk it doesn't seem to jive with what weve actually seen on the ground. I think people might be lulled into a false sense of security because the social distancing measures have worked and the virus has had very disparate effects and infection rates depending on where you live.

Theres like almost 700k active cases right now. The outbreak could stop today and wed still have well over 60k.