https://austingwalters.com/u-s-covid19-less-tests-more-death...
Real deaths seem to be closer to 250-300k at this point (whereas officially it’s 170k-180k).
Also testing is down for those curious... about 25% down from a month ago.
edit: added “pandemic related deaths” - not all deaths are necessarily covid, but could be from lack of healthcare availability, etc.
So between 1000 and 14 million. Got it.
What recent studies have shown is that while the naive herd immunity threshold is perhaps around 60% (working backwards from R0 estimates), after you factor in clustering of populations, baseline hygienic improvements, and moderate social distancing, that NY did reach an effective level of herd immunity.
I would not be surprised if it were much higher.
It does not suggest that everyone in new york caught the virus. Just that in the early days of the pandemic, when schools were open and no one knew about the virus, the model for growth was exponential with about a 25% increase in cases per day, the best estimate for the number of infections was 2^(14/3)*(1/1.5%)x deaths. Each death corresponded to about 2000 cases.
Back of the envelope based on this
* https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/COVID19/
* https://science.sciencemag.org/content/368/6498/eabd4246
* https://worldpopulationreview.com/us-cities/new-york-city-ny...
-> about half of NYC has been infected.
What's the theory on why other places that were hit hard early are still quite high...like California? Lower density?
The theory is that California flattened the curve in the original sense, delaying the peak in order to ensure it's moderately lower and protect the capacity of the healthcare system.
The worst hit me on the weekend and I returned to work on Monday with the cough.
Around 1 week prior I attended a company holiday party at a large museum with (probably?) one thousand attendees from all over the world. They mostly came from the EU, but at least some from APAC as well.
I have no evidence that this was COVID-19, but in retrospect the symptoms matched reasonably well and I haven't been sick since.
That might explain why your sample is (potentially) not representative of the overall city or state.
There was a population-wide serosurvey conducted from Aug 1st to 7th, which resulted in a 29.1% prevalence estimate, and an earlier one from June 27th to July 10th, which resulted in a 22.8% estimate. Assuming a 2 week period for IgG to be detected after infection, these surveys correspond to prevalence as of 20th July and 20th June roughly. With a population of 20M, that's around 1.25M new infections in that period. The confirmed cases by PCR testing increased by ~60000, yielding (roughly) a detection rate of 5%.
> Simulating from 1 January, we obtained 108,689 (95% PPI: 1,023 to 14,182,310) local infections cumulatively in the United States by 12 March (Fig. 1A).
What that means is that they don't really know - that confidence interval is absurd - but they have reason to think there could have been 100k Americans with the coronavirus on March 12.
As if we don't have enough fake news/hype going around.
