Corona Virus

[rlown]

Limits herd immunity though.

[rightstar76]

So 0.17% seems negligible. And that's with mitigation (albeit late). But the hospitals and clinics are overrun and all other health issues are secondary. I wonder how many people have died of non-covid causes. So that will be added to the covid death toll to make a total event death toll.

Now if there wasn't late mitigation and nothing was done, the death rate would obviously be higher. Don't know how much. But at a higher rate, and this is just speculation, while the number might seem very low, say 1.5%, the disruption would be tremendous. I'm assuming no electricity, running water, fire, police, transportation, grocery. Complete chaos. Kind of like what you see in the movies. It doesn't take a lot to overwhelm a city (or nation).

[rlown]

"A person is smart. People are dumb" Couldn't resist from posting the quote.

[schmalz]

https://www.latimes.com/california/stor ... -la-county

2.8 - 5.6 percent of LA has antibodies.

221k - 442k. 617 deaths.

[schmalz]

I did some quick math and if we go with the exact middle here, which is 4.1 percent. We get a .00186 death rate. If it requires 60 percent of Americans getting the virus for us to achieve herd immunity. It results in 368,280 deaths.

[rayfound]

One thing to remember with COVID - your deaths today relate to people who became infected over 2 weeks ago. IIRC, average time from exposure to symptoms is 4-5 days and average time from symptoms to death was 14-22 days.

[Lumbergh21]

You'd be wrong. They recognized the selection bias, but said it was unimportant since it couldn't be quantified. Researchers will defend their research. It's a rare person that will say, well all that money and time we spent was wasted. That's why we have peer review.

Who am I to believe? A bunch of know-nothing PhDs, or some guy on the internet?

I'll give you a 3rd option, read for comprehension. If the uncertainty in the test is greater than the infection rate measured, you have measured nothing of significance. Pretty simple.
If you only test people who volunteer for a difficult to get test during a panic about the virus you are testing for how do you expect that won't skew the results?
I said way, way back at the beginning of this thread that I think some of the measures being taken are ridiculous; however, I'm not about to accept the results from a deeply flawed study just because those results benefit me. I've also said from the beginning that the doctors, politicians, and people in general are all acting like they don't know what to do, like they don't have any control over this - IMO we don't - ,and that they think doing anything is better than doing nothing. I tend to disagree with the do something whether it makes sense or not policy. BUT, I also want honest, real data on which to base decisions.

[schmalz]

You'd be wrong. They recognized the selection bias, but said it was unimportant since it couldn't be quantified. Researchers will defend their research. It's a rare person that will say, well all that money and time we spent was wasted. That's why we have peer review.

Who am I to believe? A bunch of know-nothing PhDs, or some guy on the internet?

If you only test people who volunteer for a difficult to get test during a panic about the virus you are testing for how do you expect that won't skew the results?

The LA test selected people and made sure their sample group was representative of the LA population. They were able to mail some tests for some of the people as well. We need some more of this data before it becomes that valuable, but it's trending consistently on the side that it's far more widespread than our numbers suggest. I really want data from NYC.

[rlown]

Do you feel at risk? Data is great but at some point, personal choices have to be made. Back to work would be great, regardless. Too much stress on families outside of their normal schedules, not to mention financial stress.

[schmalz]

Do you feel at risk? Data is great but at some point, personal choices have to be made. Back to work would be great, regardless. Too much stress on families outside of their normal schedules, not to mention financial stress.

Well I wouldn't make a decision of this magnitude based on emotions.