The New York Math

[azbob]

NY just found that 14% of a random group tested were positive for antibodies...let's do that math.

8.4m = NY State population

1,176,000 = 14% of total population (presence of antibodies indicates they had the virus)

15,740 = NY dead from virus

I was wrong before in comparing this to the flu. The mortaility rate is far below the flu. Meanwhile, another thread here indicates DeBlasio is concerned 2m in NYC will go hungry. Many have been talking about balance in approach for months. Here is what happens when the government steps in to herd the sheep and take steps to make the citizens even more dependent on them.

 

[SmallDaddy]

HMMM????

Say nationwide 20-50K people die from the flu per year.

In NY state in a little over a month about 21K died from this.

And it is just one month.

So how is this less deadly than the flu???

 

[festeringZit]

HMMM????

Say nationwide 20-50K people die from the flu per year.

In NY state in a little over a month about 21K died from this.

And it is just one month.

So how is this less deadly than the flu???

You are comparing apples and oranges. He's quoting mortality rate, you are comparing that to total deaths. There is a difference.

The mortality rate could be a lot lower for Corona than the flu, but the death rate higher, in the case that a lot more people are contracting Corona due to it being a lot more contagious.

That is, if one is defining mortality rate as the % of people that die that get it.

 

[michael777]

HMMM????

Say nationwide 20-50K people die from the flu per year.

In NY state in a little over a month about 21K died from this.

And it is just one month.

So how is this less deadly than the flu???

Add small to the growing list of Communists to this forum

 

[PatsFan1283]

Lol

 

[SmallDaddy]

I am willing to bet anyone up to 5k that when its said and done (figures from the end of the year)
Corona virus' mortality rate will be above the flu's

Second, mortality rate, schmortality rate--- its either a lot deadlier and/or way more contagious.

Either way, its a lot more serious AND deadly than the flu

Any takers on my bet???

I didnt think so!

 

[StevieRay]

Will never know what is if other deaths are diagnosed as

 

[PatsFan1283]

15k into 1.2m, roughly 1.2% IFR is way higher than the flu

I don’t think IFR will be as high elsewhere but OP post is as wrong as can be

 

[SmallDaddy]

you can just figure this out using common sense.

The flu has been around for a long time--- herd immunity
And there is a vaccine (which is about 50%) effective.

Corona virus-- brand new, no herd immunity yet
and no vaccine

 

[SmallDaddy]

Add small to the growing list of Communists to this forum

Really you are just adding me now???

I have been a card carrying member for a long time!!

 

[PatsFan1283]

Also, his math is just wrong because 8.4m isn’t the amount of people in NY and deaths lag infections so that data isn’t clear yet but obviously many more will be dying. Probably land on around 1% there for 1st wave.

Fuck, we gotta do better with analysis people.

 

[Heatwave]

NYC = 8.4
NY State = 19.45

14% of 19.45 = 2.7M people

New York deaths currently at 21K

Death Rate = 0.78% - deaths do lag infections, so more will die, but more cases will be added as well. Let's assume that stays the same until the data proves otherwise.

Death Rate of Flu = 0.10%

Hard to argue those numbers there. However, the question to me isn't how does this compare to the flu. The flu has a "vaccine" and does have herd immunity, so I would expect those numbers to be exponentially lower. The question is - does a 0.78% chance of death from something warrant more stay at home. And that is a 0.78% chance of dying from something that you have a 14% chance of getting? Plus the likelihood of herd immunity is much less when people don't have the chance to be around others. Tough call for a lot of people - I lean toward the open up carefully side. Fire away.

 

[TomGshotput]

NY just found that 14% of a random group tested were positive for antibodies...let's do that math.

8.4m = NY State population

1,176,000 = 14% of total population (presence of antibodies indicates they had the virus)

15,740 = NY dead from virus

I was wrong before in comparing this to the flu. The mortaility rate is far below the flu. Meanwhile, another thread here indicates DeBlasio is concerned 2m in NYC will go hungry. Many have been talking about balance in approach for months. Here is what happens when the government steps in to herd the sheep and take steps to make the citizens even more dependent on them.

8.4m = NYC population, not state. Quick google search shows they have 11,267 coronavirus deaths. That's a mortality rate of just under 1%. For all of NYS, it's 20,861 ÷ (19.5 million x 14%) = 0.8%. That is about eight to 10 times the mortality rate of 0.1% for the flu: https://www.livescience.com/new-coronavirus-compare-with-flu.html and https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-compared-seasonal-flu-in-the-us-death-rates-2020-3. But there are still thousands more in the hospitals, some of whom will die, so it is likely that deaths divided by estimated cases will go up.

 

[TomGshotput]

And that is a 0.78% chance of dying from something that you have a 14% chance of getting? Plus the likelihood of herd immunity is much less when people don't have the chance to be around others. Tough call for a lot of people - I lean toward the open up carefully side. Fire away.

It's only a 14% chance of getting it with extreme interventions. Without all the shutdowns, certainly more people would have caught it.

 

[azbob]

Pats = true, I noted the NYC number and labeled as state. The Zit explained rate versus the raw number. There will be plenty of data so you can wait or apply the 14% if you like. As the number of previously undiagnosed people go up (those tested with positive antibodies), the mortality rate goes down. I realize some of you live in NY and the northeast and see the impact all around, but there are 45 other states including 18 with under 100 deaths (each). Those have a mortality rate of .033...NY's rate is .077. (both calculations are for identified cases...each will go down with antibody testing)

 

[PatsFan1283]

Yes, but the reason the IFR will be lower in other states is because the at risk population knows to quarantine so they don’t end up like NY or even Italy.
As well as expansion of testing, medical personnel being more equipped.

Not because of any comparison to the flu.

 

[NorthernStar]

So what makes the flu death rate right? There is a certain group that seem to want questions the virus numbers? Cant just admit that the virus spreads easily, no vaccine and is killing thousands.

Comparing the two is just not a good argument.