"A state-funded study at Wake Forest Baptist Health shows nearly 10 percent of people tested in North Carolina have antibodies to the coronavirus."
https://www.wral.com/coronavirus/antibody-study-shows-more-people-infected-with-coronavirus-in-nc-than-numbers-show/19150903/
NC's population is ~10.5 million, implying about 1.05 million infections.
With ~ 1,269 deaths reported to date (https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/?emulatemode=1), that implies an IFR of about 0.125%.
So let's say you don't trust NC's reporting or you think they've vastly underreported deaths. So double the IFR to 0.25% or so and you're now consistent with the CDC's estimate of 0.4% IFR for symptomatic cases (or about 0.26% assuming 1 in 3 cases are asymptomatic).
Yes, the IFR in New York and Spain and Italy were higher.
Treatments are almost certainly better than they were in February and March when they intubated everyone they could and thought this was primarily a pulminary disease.
Mix some antivirals with plasma therapy, a dash of blood thinners and some steroidal anti-inflammatories and it's quite likely that better treatments have drastically reduced the IFR.
Throw in the fact that deaths have continued to plummet as cases have increased in the US (although, yes, deaths are a lagging indicator), and I'm optimistic that the COVID IFR will settle in at less than .5% as the summer moves on.
21 Jun 20
@sh76 saidThrow in the fact that deaths have continued to plummet as cases have increased in the US (although, yes, deaths are a lagging indicator), and I'm optimistic that the COVID IFR will settle in at less than .5% as the summer moves on.
"A state-funded study at Wake Forest Baptist Health shows nearly 10 percent of people tested in North Carolina have antibodies to the coronavirus."
https://www.wral.com/coronavirus/antibody-study-shows-more-people-infected-with-coronavirus-in-nc-than-numbers-show/19150903/
NC's population is ~10.5 million, implying about 1.05 million infections.
With ~ 1,269 deaths repo ...[text shortened]... ator), and I'm optimistic that the COVID IFR will settle in at less than .5% as the summer moves on.
I sincerely hope you're correct. I would add that those numbers would improve if people would take masks and social distancing more seriously; many do of course, but many more do not.
@mchill saidMasks and social distancing reduce the rate of infection. They do not reduce the infection fatality rate.
Throw in the fact that deaths have continued to plummet as cases have increased in the US (although, yes, deaths are a lagging indicator), and I'm optimistic that the COVID IFR will settle in at less than .5% as the summer moves on.
I sincerely hope you're correct. I would add that those numbers would improve if people would take masks and social distancing more seriously; many do of course, but many more do not.
Edit: That's a slight over simplification. There are convoluted reasons why masks and social distancing might increase or decrease IFR, but the simplest way of putting it is that there's no obvious connection.
Edit 2: If you're curious:
Masks and social distancing might increase IFR by limiting infection among people out and about (who are likely lower risk), thereby increasing the share of infected people who are not out and about.
Masks and social distancing might decrease IFR by decreasing the initial viral load of each infected person. A person without a mask might get a huge viral load from a sneeze, while a person with a mask might get infected by touching an infected surface and then touching his face, which is likely to start the infection at a much lower viral load level.
21 Jun 20
@sh76 saidHow many of these junk studies are you going to start threads about?
"A state-funded study at Wake Forest Baptist Health shows nearly 10 percent of people tested in North Carolina have antibodies to the coronavirus."
https://www.wral.com/coronavirus/antibody-study-shows-more-people-infected-with-coronavirus-in-nc-than-numbers-show/19150903/
NC's population is ~10.5 million, implying about 1.05 million infections.
With ~ 1,269 deaths repo ...[text shortened]... ator), and I'm optimistic that the COVID IFR will settle in at less than .5% as the summer moves on.
"A new study based at Wake Forest Baptist Health will mail coronavirus antibody tests to 1,000 North Carolinians, legislative leaders announced Monday."
https://www.wral.com/coronavirus/nc-legislature-will-fund-covid-19-antibody-tests/19054667/
Do you really think mailing tests and relying on people who return them gets you any type of representative sample?
It's quite plausible that the IFR might be going down somewhat; the possibility that this might happen due to more effective treatments was one of the reasons why early lockdowns were advisable. But even if it is goes to .5, if the US keeps averaging 25,000 to 30,000 confirmed new cases a day as it has the last few days, you're still looking at an increase in deaths back up to the 1000 per day range.
@no1marauder saidI'm no expert on statistical sampling and neither are you. I've read many COVID studies and all of them have sampling problems. The NEJM study that found HCQ ineffective for post-exposure prohylaxis relied entirely on self-reporting and was run entirely through the mail. Not one person in the study so much as had a test or came face to face with any of the researchers; and yet people were perfectly happy to use it to dance on HCQ's grave.
How many of these junk studies are you going to start threads about?
"A new study based at Wake Forest Baptist Health will mail coronavirus antibody tests to 1,000 North Carolinians, legislative leaders announced Monday."
https://www.wral.com/coronavirus/nc-legislature-will-fund-covid-19-antibody-tests/19054667/
Do you really think mailing tests and relying on pe ...[text shortened]... the last few days, you're still looking at an increase in deaths back up to the 1000 per day range.
Granted that sampling is hard in these things, but when research universities and hospitals come up with study after study that seem to show the same thing time after time, I'm going to put some credence on them even if you think they're all junk studies.
21 Jun 20
@no1marauder saidHow many of these junk studies are you going to start threads about?
How many of these junk studies are you going to start threads about?
"A new study based at Wake Forest Baptist Health will mail coronavirus antibody tests to 1,000 North Carolinians, legislative leaders announced Monday."
https://www.wral.com/coronavirus/nc-legislature-will-fund-covid-19-antibody-tests/19054667/
Do you really think mailing tests and relying on pe ...[text shortened]... the last few days, you're still looking at an increase in deaths back up to the 1000 per day range.
Perhaps it's time to review your sensitivity training classes. 🙂
21 Jun 20
@no1marauder saidRegarding your last point, testing is getting more and more ubiquitous. It's possible that the 30k cases/day are picking up 1/5 of actual cases rather than the 1/10 or 1/20 or 1/50 we were picking up in March and April.
How many of these junk studies are you going to start threads about?
"A new study based at Wake Forest Baptist Health will mail coronavirus antibody tests to 1,000 North Carolinians, legislative leaders announced Monday."
https://www.wral.com/coronavirus/nc-legislature-will-fund-covid-19-antibody-tests/19054667/
Do you really think mailing tests and relying on pe ...[text shortened]... the last few days, you're still looking at an increase in deaths back up to the 1000 per day range.
Deaths are now at 600/day in the 7-day rolling average. Let's see if that goes up significantly. If it does, I'll be convinced there's a major problem.
21 Jun 20
@sh76 saidThe NY antibody studies (remember when you were touting them, at least BEFORE their results) gave an 8:1 ratio of total cases to confirmed cases. That was when NY was testing heavily, more heavily than the national average now.
Regarding your last point, testing is getting more and more ubiquitous. It's possible that the 30k cases/day are picking up 1/5 of actual cases rather than the 1/10 or 1/20 or 1/50 we were picking up in March and April.
Deaths are now at 600/day in the 7-day rolling average. Let's see if that goes up significantly. If it does, I'll be convinced there's a major problem.
That's still the best data, so I'll stick to it.
@sh76 saidImproving immune systems lowers death rates as well, as do younger people getting sick.
"A state-funded study at Wake Forest Baptist Health shows nearly 10 percent of people tested in North Carolina have antibodies to the coronavirus."
https://www.wral.com/coronavirus/antibody-study-shows-more-people-infected-with-coronavirus-in-nc-than-numbers-show/19150903/
NC's population is ~10.5 million, implying about 1.05 million infections.
With ~ 1,269 deaths repo ...[text shortened]... ator), and I'm optimistic that the COVID IFR will settle in at less than .5% as the summer moves on.
Death rates for entire populations are meaningless.
21 Jun 20
@sh76 saidYour target figure of 0.5% IFR may indeed be attained in due time, if only because the virus will have burned uncontrollably through all susceptible segments of the population, leaving only the ones who are more resistant.
Throw in the fact that deaths have continued to plummet as cases have increased in the US (although, yes, deaths are a lagging indicator), and I'm optimistic that the COVID IFR will settle in at less than .5% as the summer moves on.
It is becoming apparent, though, that the disease primarily hits the circulatory system, and not the lungs. The lungs are hit secondarily, which helps explain some of the otherwise weird behaviors exhibited by the disease's progression.
21 Jun 20
@soothfast saidLol
After 121,000+ deaths you're still not convinced that there's a major problem?
What percent is this of the total population? How many people have died this year?
21 Jun 20
If I were the pontificating sort (and I am), I would say that this past month most of the new Covid cases are skewing younger. Bars, clubs, and restaurants are opening in the states that are in denial, and younger people have been involved in mass protests (usually outside with masks thankfully). Older folks are still being cautious. But the more younger people who pick up the disease, the more they will transmit it to the older people.
By the end of this month I feel deaths are going to be north of 1000 per day again, mostly concentrated in Sunbelt states like Florida, Arizona, and Texas. I'll be happy to be proven wrong.
@no1marauder saidWhere did you get 8:1?
The NY antibody studies (remember when you were touting them, at least BEFORE their results) gave an 8:1 ratio of total cases to confirmed cases. That was when NY was testing heavily, more heavily than the national average now.
That's still the best data, so I'll stick to it.
NY seroprevalence studies showed about 14% positive statewide (https://www.360dx.com/infectious-disease/new-york-california-serology-studies-give-early-estimates-covid-19-prevalence#.Xu-J42hKiUk), that's about 1.75m infections as of early-to-mid April. The study was released on April 23.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/23/nyregion/coronavirus-antibodies-test-ny.html
Antibodies don't typically show until at least 2 weeks after infection.
https://directorsblog.nih.gov/2020/05/07/study-finds-nearly-everyone-who-recovers-from-covid-19-makes-coronavirus-antibodies/
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/lab/resources/antibody-tests-guidelines.html
So, I think I'm being more than fair to use an April 7 date. As of that date, there were ~138k positive tests, for a ratio of about 13:1.
https://www.pix11.com/news/coronavirus/latest-coronavirus-updates-in-new-york-tuesday-april-7-2020
If you use April 1, which is a more fair date, given the time it takes to develop antibodies and the likely dates of most of the field tests in a study that was released on April 23, the ratio goes up to more than 20:1.
https://www.pix11.com/news/coronavirus/latest-coronavirus-updates-in-new-york-wednesday-april-1-2020