High Sierra Topix

franklin411 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 23, 2020 10:25 am

rayfound wrote: ↑Thu Apr 23, 2020 7:47 am Thanks for making my point.

And in the end, you still ended up wrong. Sucks, don't it?

Ooh oooh oohhh! But maybe, like um...the people...um...randomly selected....maybe there was some racial profiling?!?! Unconscious bias??! Contamination?? THROW ME A GODDAMN BONE! I DESPERATELY NEED TO BELIEVE THAT MY FACE MASK IS SAVING LIVES! =D

An estimated 13.9% of the New Yorkers have likely had Covid-19, according to preliminary results of coronavirus antibody testing released by Gov. Andrew Cuomo on Thursday.

The state randomly tested 3,000 people at grocery stores and shopping locations across 19 counties in 40 localities to see if they had the antibodies to fight the coronavirus, indicating they have had the virus and recovered from it, Cuomo said.

With more than 19.4 million people residents, according to U.S. Census data, the preliminary results indicate that at least 2.7 million New Yorkers have been infected with Covid-19.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/23/new-yor ... -says.html

Wow... It's amazing the confidence you are showing given you've made, and been corrected on, yet still ignore, a mistake of 10-fold on your math.

I'll walk you through it:



8,400,000 People in NYC. 15,869 reported deaths from Covid19 in NYC roughly 0.2% of the population has died. This puts (assuming 100% infection rate to date, and NO MORE DEATHS IN THE FUTURE)... a bottom-end/lower bound estimate of IFR (Infection Fatality Rate) at 0.2%.

With what you mentioned, and what NY went on to say specific to NYC, is they found 21.5% of population was infected*****, or had been infected, as demonstrated by antibody blood testing.

So, crude math here: 0.2% / 21.5% = 0.9% Infection Fatality Rate as a bottom end estimate.

Now, you'll note, The Terms "Infection Fatality Rate" and "Case Fatality Rate" used somewhat interchangeably. I'll clarify:

IFR is essentially everyone who contracted disease (regardless of symptoms/needing medical attention).

CFR is ALWAYS higher than or equal to IFR, since it uses the same deathtoll divided by the number of CASES (confirmed/probable cases that interfaces with medical systems).

With perfect testing CFR=IFR.


*****This is assuming antibody testing is accurate and sample is sufficiently representative of population. I'll await expertise and more data in that regard.

franklin411 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 23, 2020 10:25 am THROW ME A GODDAMN BONE! I DESPERATELY NEED TO BELIEVE THAT MY FACE MASK IS SAVING LIVES! =D

I want to handle this separately from correcting your arithmetic.

I'll state my ethical standpoint up front: at 0.9% IFR(low end estimate), with Herd immunity requiring >60% resistance, you're looking at 196,800,000 americans to reach something resembling herd immunity (without vaccines). That represents 1,771,200 deaths in US alone. I do not find that acceptable, nor do I find any significant fraction of that acceptable, and I think it is worth a LOT of economic pain, national debt, etc... to prevent it from happening.


Now the good news: We don't need perfect controls to prevent the virus from exponentially growing out of control and rushing towards the herd immunity tipping point (i'll also note, the faster you approach herd immunity, the more "overshoot" you get beyond what is needed for herd immunity).

Epidemiologists believe in un-contained (no social distancing measures) outbreaks, Sar-Cov2 has an R_0 of about 3.0 - meaning each infected person infects 3 people. (measles is like 20) We need to get this below (R_E... effective reproduction) 1.0 so the virus burns itself out.

So if we change our behavior and limit the number of social interections by 33%, we get R_E of ~2.0. BUT MAYBE, JUST MAYBE, EVERYONE wears a mask when we contact each other, maybe we can get that number down to R_e=0.5 or 0.8, 0.9 and we can terminate the virus though herd behavior, rather than through the sacrifice of 1% of the herd.


All of which is to say: If your goal is getting normal life and activity back, learn to love masks, 6-ft separation in lines, etc....

No masks. Go for the inevitable. Even getting my dog to the vet with a puncture wound was pushed off for 24 hrs because of the fear. Luckily, I have some old amoxicillin which with peroxide scrubs/flushes seems to work.

If you're gonna die, you're gonna die.

rlown wrote: ↑Thu Apr 23, 2020 11:18 am No masks. Go for the inevitable. Even getting my dog to the vet with a puncture wound was pushed off for 24 hrs because of the fear. Luckily, I have some old amoxicillin which with peroxide scrubs/flushes seems to work.

If you're gonna die, you're gonna die.

This does not align with my ethics.

Ethics have nothing to do with it. It's how your body responds to an invasion. If it can't, then its pretty obvious what the outcome will be.
Your stats won't fix it.

The mask is to protect the infection chain downstream of me, should I become infected.

If you live in a house and SIP, and visit a grocery store even once a week, and even wash your cans, It's coming home with you, regardless of mask.
Pretty sure 82% will live. Maybe even my dog.

This whole thread about multiplication reminds me of a humorous case study from years ago. I think we can all agree that some humor is sorely needed right now.

Back in the 80s, A&W decided to give McDonald's a run for its money by introducing a burger to compete with the popular 1/4-pounder. The A&W burger was priced the same as the 1/4-pounder but had 1/3-pound meat and in blind taste testings, did better than the 1/4-pounder. But even with an aggressive marketing campaign, the burger failed to sell. After some further study with customer focus groups, they found out why. As the owner of A&W wrote:

"More than half of the participants in the Yankelovich focus groups questioned the price of our burger. "Why," they asked, "should we pay the same amount for a third of a pound of meat as we do for a quarter-pound of meat at McDonald's? You're overcharging us." Honestly. People thought a third of a pound was less than a quarter of a pound. After all, three is less than four!"

People, let's get beyond the calculations please, agree to disagree, and if you don't really have anything constructive to add to the thread, or have the same message over and over again, please move on.