*** OFFICIAL *** COVID-19 CoronaVirus Thread. Fresh epidemic fears as child pneumonia cases surge in Europe after China outbreak. NOW in USA (3 Viewers)

[AAABatteries]

A couple links that might be worth reading:

What 5 models say the next month will look like

The next is a review article discussing school closures and Covid-19

School closure management review

Can we stop with the helpful posts and get back to arguing?  TIA.

 

[Politician Spock]

The vast majority of deaths have come from old people and those with pre existing conditions.     Everyone else has very close to 0 risk of dying from this.     Not quite 0, but pretty darned close.

My 16 year old daughter is going to work in a grocery store.    Which means she'll be fairly likely to get it IMO.     I'd put her risk of dying at almost 0.    Mine will be a little higher since I'm in my 40's.    But it'll still be fairly close to 0.      In my estimate, the odds that I've already had this are dramatically higher than those odds.   

What you are suggesting isn't very different than what we are already doing. Old people and people with pre-existing conditions who have essential jobs are NOT working them. They're choosing to stay home. Those essential jobs they aren't working are being back filled by people who have been furloughed or laid off from non-essential jobs. 

If you forced people with pre-existing conditions to not work, that would put far more than 26 million people out of work, given the number of people with pre-existing conditions in this country is 3 to 6 times that amount. 

 

[-fish-]

The fact that these people are in charge of our response is truly frightening.  But I've heard it's a good time to get a puppy.

Link

 

[DrJ]

What you are suggesting isn't very different than what we are already doing. Old people and people with pre-existing conditions who have essential jobs are NOT working them. They're choosing to stay home. Those essential jobs they aren't working are being back filled by people who have been furloughed or laid off from non-essential jobs. 

If you forced people with pre-existing conditions to not work, that would put far more than 26 million people out of work, given the number of people with pre-existing conditions in this country is 3 to 6 times that amount. 

How can you in one sentence say that people with pre existing conditions aren't working, and then follow that up with it would be 3-6 times bigger if they weren't working?

 

[Pipes]

Hard to get farther away in an elevator. 

Or on a train

 

[STEADYMOBBIN 22]

Except that you can't really prove that.     It's reasonable to believe we could have achieve the exact same results we have now by just telling old people to stay put and limiting access to them and letting everyone else go on with their lives.

Say what now?

 

[Politician Spock]

How can you in one sentence say that people with pre existing conditions aren't working, and then follow that up with it would be 3-6 times bigger if they weren't working?

Because they're making the choice. 

 

[parasaurolophus]

What you are suggesting isn't very different than what we are already doing. Old people and people with pre-existing conditions who have essential jobs are NOT working them. They're choosing to stay home. Those essential jobs they aren't working are being back filled by people who have been furloughed or laid off from non-essential jobs. 

If you forced people with pre-existing conditions to not work, that would put far more than 26 million people out of work, given the number of people with pre-existing conditions in this country is 3 to 6 times that amount. 

Wait ,what? Where are you getting this data?

 

[-fish-]

The vast majority of deaths have come from old people and those with pre existing conditions.     Everyone else has very close to 0 risk of dying from this.     Not quite 0, but pretty darned close.

My 16 year old daughter is going to work in a grocery store.    Which means she'll be fairly likely to get it IMO.     I'd put her risk of dying at almost 0.    Mine will be a little higher since I'm in my 40's.    But it'll still be fairly close to 0.      In my estimate, the odds that I've already had this are dramatically higher than those odds.   

I'm 52.   In my life, I've never known anyone to be hospitalized for the flu.   I've never known anyone to die from the flu.   In the last week, two otherwise healthy people who I've known for years died.   This week a friend in her late 30s with no underlying health problems was admitted to the hospital after her 02 levels crashed.   Would you mind talking to her  children to tell them her risk of death is almost 0?  Because they can't see their mom.   She can't see them.   She can't talk to them either, since she's been intubated.   Her risk of death is a hell of a lot more than 0.   I'd appreciate it if you'd stop spouting this nonsense.  

 

[DrJ]

Because they're making the choice. 

Uh...okay...

 

[The Commish]

Can it be simply that the emerging news paints a better picture? I mean the more we test, the more people we find who had it unknowingly which lessens the danger in two ways. It lessens the mortality rate and it builds the number of people with antibodies to hopefully lessen the risk of spread going forward. And if the timeline keeps lengthening that paints a more optimistic picture as well. It means some places may have already had their biggest surge and put it behind them. And it also contextualizes the sheer size of this battle over a much greater period of time. Doesn't mean it's suddenly something we can ignore. But it makes the hill to climb a little less daunting.

A better picture than what?  The initial guess by some?  Ok.  However, I think for ANY of us who were/are waiting to see the picture before we label it "good" or "bad" it makes no difference whatsoever and perhaps that's my hang up.  I didn't make predictions so there's nothing for me to do other than follow the science and what the results reveal.  So for me there was never a picture to begin with.  It's still being crafted.  The rest of the bickering back and forth over what they think the picture is going to look like seems like an exercise in futility to those of us watching the picture "appear" as it were.

 

[Pipes]

Wait ,what? Where are you getting this data?

Yeah that's not true.  In most cases furloughed or laid off people aren't stepping into new "essential job" roles now. 

 

[shader]

This is where some people get frustrated by you. You took a positive comment from that article:

"Cuomo stressed that more data will need to be collected and the infection rate could be higher because it didn't include people who aren't leaving their homes."

And somehow spun it into a negative one

"I just read the following. No idea if that may or may not change things slightly.

“Cuomo noted that the survey was preliminary and limited by other factors. He said the testing targeted people who were out in society shopping, meaning that they may be more likely to be infected than people isolating at home.”

You are clearly misleading everyone with the exact opposite what he said. 

@[scooter]

This is why I came in with the justaflu post because stuff like the above frustrates me to no end and @shader keeps doing it and anyone who calls him out on it gets blasted. 

However i admit I am part of the problem so I'll apologize and stop. 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-usa-new-york/new-york-test-of-3000-people-finds-14-with-coronavirus-antibodies-idUSKCN2252WN
 

From the article:  “The survey targeted people who were out shopping, but not working, meaning they were not essential workers like grocery clerks or bus drivers but were more likely to test positive for antibodies than someone isolated at home, Cuomo said.“

 

[DrJ]

I'm 52.   In my life, I've never known anyone to be hospitalized for the flu.   I've never known anyone to die from the flu.   In the last week, two otherwise healthy people who I've known for years died.   This week a friend in her late 30s with no underlying health problems was admitted to the hospital after her 02 levels crashed.   Would you mind talking to her  children to tell them her risk of death is almost 0?  Because they can't see their mom.   She can't see them.   She can't talk to them either, since she's been intubated.   Her risk of death is a hell of a lot more than 0.   I'd appreciate it if you'd stop spouting this nonsense.  

I'd be happy to tell them she got an extremely improbable result statistically, if you think that'll help.

 

[Politician Spock]

Wait ,what? Where are you getting this data?

I never said it was data. It's all over facebook in my town's facebook groups that older people and people with pre-existing conditions have stopped working essential jobs like at grocery stores, and people furloughed and laid off from non-essential jobs are being hired there. I'm sorry if what I'm seeing is not the norm everywhere. 

 

[The Commish]

Comparing the dangers is useful in determining whether our response was appropriate.   Some of us feel that our reaction was an likely an over reaction.   

I hear this a lot too, however, it must be remembered, that "results" today are based on what we've done thus far and the initial predictions (at least any that I've seen) were based on "if we did nothing and let it run it's course" kind of estimations.  So comparing the two doesn't (maybe it should be shouldn't) give us a warm and fuzzy that it was likely an over reaction.  I suspect that won't be known for a few years anyway once we have much more data on it and it's behavior.  Thinking that today is premature IMO.

 

[Politician Spock]

I'd be happy to tell them she got an extremely improbable result statistically, if you think that'll help.

The hospitalization rate for COVID-19 is anything but extremely improbable. If your argument requires hyperbole, then it's not a strong argument to begin with. 

 

[DrJ]

The hospitalization rate for COVID-19 is anything but extremely improbable. If your argument requires hyperbole, then it's not a strong argument to begin with. 

For the 30 year old age group, yes it's extremely improbably that a covid infection results in hospitalization...

 

[Pipes]

I never said it was data. It's all over facebook in my town's facebook groups that older people and people with pre-existing conditions have stopped working essential jobs like at grocery stores, and people furloughed and laid off from non-essential jobs are being hired there. I'm sorry if what I'm seeing is not the norm everywhere. 

It's not the norm.  Why would anyone give up whatever their normal state pays in unemployment plus $600 per week to go work in a grocery store?  There may be a few cases of that but it's not that common.  Plus grocery stores are just one industry.  Most essential jobs are more technical is nature that just don't allow someone to quickly hop into without a ton of training.

 

[DrJ]

I hear this a lot too, however, it must be remembered, that "results" today are based on what we've done thus far and the initial predictions (at least any that I've seen) were based on "if we did nothing and let it run it's course" kind of estimations.  So comparing the two doesn't (maybe it should be shouldn't) give us a warm and fuzzy that it was likely an over reaction.  I suspect that won't be known for a few years anyway once we have much more data on it and it's behavior.  Thinking that today is premature IMO.

No, the estimations were based on extremely high mortality rates that are proving to be inaccurate and bloated.      All you have to do is adjust the mortality rate lower and they go down.

 

[Politician Spock]

For the 30 year old age group, yes it's extremely improbably that a covid infection results in hospitalization...

CDC has it between 2 and 3%: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/pdfs/mm6915e3-H.pdf

That is anything but extremely improbable. 

 

[-fish-]

I'd be happy to tell them she got an extremely improbable result statistically, if you think that'll help.

The problem when you're dealing with massive numbers like 7.8 billion people is that when 60% have a 1% chance of dying, that means 40+ million people will die.  Statistically it is not improbable at all.   

Unfortunately, although in most cases ignorance is just annoying, in this situation it can get responsible, thinking people killed.   In the current environment, people lose their right to be dangerously stupid.

 

[-fish-]

CDC has it between 2 and 3%: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/pdfs/mm6915e3-H.pdf

That is anything but extremely improbable. 

math doesn't really fit the justaflu agenda.  

 

[Mr Anonymous]

Czech Republic which closed down 5 days earlier than the U.S. began its shut downs in mass and started phased reopening on April 20th has now moved up their full reopening to May 25th.  I recall many expressing doubt that their reopening would turn out well but it's actually gone better than expected...

Czech Government Speeds Up Reopening Shops as New Cases Slow

The Czech Republic is speeding up plans to ease its coronavirus lockdown by two weeks to get all shops, restaurants and hotels operating again by May 25 as the number of infections stabilises, the industry minister said on Thursday.

The central European country has used drastic measures including shop and school closures, limiting people's daily movements and making masks obligatory in public in an effort to prevent any uncontrolled spike in the new coronavirus.

Remember, Czech Republic was the country that went from zero public usage of masks to 100% participation in 10 days and flattened their curve in 14 days. They began phased reopening much sooner than here and one of the biggest differences was the wide use of masks.

Takeaway of the day though is that they didn't have a big surge in cases following their relaxed restrictions. We can all hope we see the same here.

 

[chet]

Holy ####.

How have I never known the mayor of Vegas. She is

https://twitter.com/joshtpm/status/1253041723510587394?s=20

She's being condemned nationally.

 

[DrJ]

CDC has it between 2 and 3%: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/pdfs/mm6915e3-H.pdf

That is anything but extremely improbable. 

No, that's 2-3 per 100,000 of the population bro.     

 

[Mr Anonymous]

She's being condemned nationally.

Rest assured, it's locally as well. She's doing Las Vegas no favors.

 

[The Commish]

No, the estimations were based on extremely high mortality rates that are proving to be inaccurate and bloated.    

Right, those rates were based on "if we do nothing and allow this virus to take it's course".  We've mitigated a ton of that by staying in place these passed few months.  Personally, I don't think we're out of the woods and at the moment it's my belief we are setting ourselves up for a game of whack-a-mole.  Can we manage that?  Probably.  Will people continue to want to compare the number of deaths to the number of flu deaths after the next waves hit?  I doubt it.  Right now, in two and a half months we are at "flu like levels" for an entire flu season that is 6-7 months long if you're talking about deaths.  We'll be clear of flu levels by the end of next month best I can tell...that's half the time and that doesn't include the people who died from it before we started paying any attention.  Mortality rate may go down as we realize more and more people had it and survived (proven by antibody tests) so I'm pretty sure the narrative will switch to that despite the fact, it's possible that we missed thousands of deaths in those same months or attributed them to something else in error.  

It's my recommendation that we stop the comparisons for now and maybe ramp them back up once we have our legs under us with respect to testing (both for the virus and antibodies).  Though, I'm not sure that's ever going to happen.  When all is said and done, if we end up with a 1% mortality rate but significantly more contagious and easy to spread, then it's safe to say it has very little in common with the flu IMO.

 

[DrJ]

No, that's 2-3 per 100,000 of the population bro.     

And in my daughter's age group it's basically 0 per 100,000 even make it to the hospital.      There was a 16 year old kid that died here in Illinois, so it's not 0.      But realistically, it's basically 0.

 

[Politician Spock]

No, that's 2-3 per 100,000 of the population bro.     

So then the percentage depends on what percent of the 100,000 that tested positive were in that age group. I couldn't find that data anywhere on that pdf.

So here is one that shows the risk of hospitalization by age group. From: https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2020-03-30/odds-of-hospitalization-death-with-covid-19-rise-steadily-with-age-study

By decade, the risk of hospitalization from infection with the new coronavirus is: Zero for kids under 10; 0.1% for kids 10 to 19; 1% for people aged 20 to 29; 3.4% for people aged 30 to 39; 4.3% for people in their 40s; 8.2% for those in their 50s; 11.8% for people aged 60 to 69; 16.6% for those in their 70s; and 18.4% for those in their 80s or above.

So it's even higher than 2 to 3%.

It's 3.4%. 

 

[the moops]

She's being condemned nationally.

well yeah. 

 

[Terminalxylem]

I have definitely been on the cautious side. I don't know if my cautiousness will show up in a data mine of this thread, but I do own a Water Bob now.

I just don't agree with the testing requirements listed in reference to reopening. We have been told to trust Fauci and Birx, and both of them downplay testing. It makes sense to me, but as I've harped on enough, my main concern has been out medical community being able to handle the crisis. Even in the worst hotspot we have, NYC, we haven't been overwhelmed. I understand that could happen with reopening, but as long as that doesn't happen, my opinion is we should move forward cautiously.

Your definition must be a little different, but I don't know how anyone looks at HCW working around the clock without appropriate protective equipment, using makeshift facilities as not overwhelmed. I suppose the lines of people seeking care outside the hospital and freezer trucks to accommodate extra corpses were also reflective of a system ready for anything COVID-19 could muster? Ever wonder why the CFR in NYC was so much higher than the rest of the country? 

 

[DrJ]

So then the percentage depends on what percent of the 100,000 that tested positive were in that age group. I couldn't find that data anywhere on that pdf.

So here is one that shows the risk of hospitalization by age group. From: https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2020-03-30/odds-of-hospitalization-death-with-covid-19-rise-steadily-with-age-study

So it's even higher than 2 to 3%.

It's 3.4%. 

Seems ridiculous to assign a percentage without even knowing how many people got infected...    which we now know is vastly higher than what anyone estimated on 3/30

 

[Politician Spock]

Seems ridiculous to assign a percentage without even knowing how many people got infected...    which we now know is vastly higher than what anyone estimated on 3/30

It's even more ridiculous to say "it's extremely improbable". 

 

[DrJ]

It's even more ridiculous to say "it's extremely improbable". 

Also from that article - "As for the death rate, the risk was near zero for people under 40."

Gee, it gave the EXACT figure I did...

 

[shader]

Has anyone seen the study Cuomo referenced?

 

[jplvr]

Your definition must be a little different, but I don't know how anyone looks at HCW working around the clock without appropriate protective equipment, using makeshift facilities as not overwhelmed. I suppose the lines of people seeking care outside the hospital and freezer trucks to accommodate extra corpses were also reflective of a system ready for anything COVID-19 could muster? Ever wonder why the CFR in NYC was so much higher than the rest of the country? 

I would say overwhelmed would be what happened in Italy, with reports of doctors choosing who should and shouldn't be allowed a ventilator. 

 

[-fish-]

So then the percentage depends on what percent of the 100,000 that tested positive were in that age group. I couldn't find that data anywhere on that pdf.

So here is one that shows the risk of hospitalization by age group. From: https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2020-03-30/odds-of-hospitalization-death-with-covid-19-rise-steadily-with-age-study

So it's even higher than 2 to 3%.

It's 3.4%. 

He's including everyone in the population, not just those that tested positive.   

You're actually addressing what is being discussed, which is the hospitalization rate for people that are infected.   The numbers only work for justaflu guys if you cherry pick the ones that fit the agenda.

 

[Politician Spock]

Also from that article - "As for the death rate, the risk was near zero for people under 40."

Gee, it gave the EXACT figure I did...

We were talking about telling the woman's kids that their mom experienced an extremely improbable chance of being hospitalized by it. That is 3.4%, or 0.034.

Once hospitalized, that near zero risk of death they mention no longer has all known cases as the denominator in her chances of dying. It now has 0.034 as the denominator, because the other 0.966 of known cases who don't get hospitalized are no longer part of the equation. She is part of the 3.4%

We don't know exactly what number "near zero" is. So lets just assume it's as low as 0.1%,  or 0.001. 

0.001 / 0.034 =  0.03, or 3%. 

Again, 3% is NOT extremely improbable. 

 

[DrJ]

He's including everyone in the population, not just those that tested positive.   

You're actually addressing what is being discussed, which is the hospitalization rate for people that are infected.   The numbers only work for justaflu guys if you cherry pick the ones that fit the agenda.

I never even argued about hospitalization figures, I only referenced deaths in these age groups which I said are close to 0.      And the stuff he posted confirms exactly what I said.

 

[Politician Spock]

He's including everyone in the population, not just those that tested positive.   

You're actually addressing what is being discussed, which is the hospitalization rate for people that are infected.   The numbers only work for justaflu guys if you cherry pick the ones that fit the agenda.

Yes, his numbers game has become very clear. Things never look as bad as they are when you make the denominator far bigger than it really is. 

 

[-fish-]

Yes, his numbers game has become very clear. Things never look as bad as they are when you make the denominator far bigger than it really is. 

But hey, if nobody contracted it the death rate would be zero!

 

[DrJ]

We were talking about telling the woman's kids that their mom experienced an extremely improbable chance of being hospitalized by it. That is 3.4%, or 0.034.

Once hospitalized, that near zero risk of death they mention no longer has all known cases as the denominator in her chances of dying. It now has 0.034 as the denominator, because the other 0.966 of known cases who don't get hospitalized are no longer part of the equation. She is part of the 3.4%

We don't know exactly what number "near zero" is. So lets just assume is as low as 0.1%,  or 0.001. 

0.001 / 0.034 =  0.03, or 3%. 

Again, 3% is NOT extremely improbable. 

He was responding to me saying that this age group has near zero chance of dying, and said that this hospitalized person now has a much greater than 0% chance.     Really at 3% the hospitalization itself is just simply improbable.     And a death would be "extremely improbable".     Nothing you have posted changes this...and only confirms it further.

 

[Redwes25]

On upside, appears 14% or so in antibody study in NY showed presence. IF (big if) thats representative of a wider sample, then it’s good news for overall mortality. However, there is still no indication antibodies mean immunity from a single or multiple strains. And we still don’t know if some strains are more deadly, and will hit later. Decent news though.

In general, appears a bad idea to form longterm expectations based on rumors, individual studies, or breaking news.

Unpacking these numbers a bit it shows some truly shocking things about this virus.  If 14% of NY state was/is infected that comes out to 2.7mm infections.  That is just an insane number of infections but shows a very low case fatality rate of something like 0.7%. The case fatality rate if that low is obviously good news but when you tie it to how infectious the disease it is pretty shocking how many people this disease could kill.

I have been trying to dig up numbers on what to compare it to and obviously the most comparable thing is the flu.  I can't seem to find good numbers on NY state average flu numbers but found an interesting article about the 2018 flu season which is one of the worst most recent flu seasons and NY had 128,000 lab confirmed cases of the flu that year.  Obviously that is under reporting as not everyone who gets the flu gets a test for the flu and many healthier people stay home but just on a rough numbers bases how infectious this disease is compared to the flu is shocking.  If you try to look on a more apples to apples basis (tested flu cases vs. reported case numbers in NY) Worldometers has NY state at 268,000 cases and those numbers are just a six week period or so vs. an entire flue season to get to 128,000.  

I think the real thing about this disease is how infectious it is more than anything else.  

Article I mentioned - https://www.lohud.com/story/news/health/2018/05/22/flu-season-new-york-deaths/632040002/

 

[Politician Spock]

I'm 52.   In my life, I've never known anyone to be hospitalized for the flu.   I've never known anyone to die from the flu.   In the last week, two otherwise healthy people who I've known for years died.   This week a friend in her late 30s with no underlying health problems was admitted to the hospital after her 02 levels crashed.   Would you mind talking to her  children to tell them her risk of death is almost 0?  Because they can't see their mom.   She can't see them.   She can't talk to them either, since she's been intubated.   Her risk of death is a hell of a lot more than 0.   I'd appreciate it if you'd stop spouting this nonsense.  

I'd be happy to tell them she got an extremely improbable result statistically, if you think that'll help.

@-fish-'s request to you was "Would you mind talking to her  children to tell them her risk of death is almost 0?" (see the bolded above).

As someone in her late 30's who has been hospitalized by COVID-19, her chances of dying are NOT near zero. Near zero is the chances of dying of ALL 30's who have tested positive.

Again, we can ignore 96.6% of all 30's who have tested positive to calculate her current risk of death. Take the risk of death for all 30's who have tested positive and divide it by 0.034.

Having been hospitalized by the virus, she currently has around a 3% chance of dying from it. Her kids should be worried. It's not extremely improbable that she could die (it's 3%). Nor was it extremely improbably that she got hospitalized by it (it was 3.4%). And unless we develop a vaccine, 70% or more of the population has to get it in order for us to exit this crisis (herd immunity). 

 

[Mr Anonymous]

Weather factor gains more steam in today's national briefing.

*Note this is not an endorsement or a drawn conclusion. Just a statement to the fact it's now entered the national conversation in a more wide scale manner.

 

[DrJ]

@-fish-'s request to you was "Would you mind talking to her  children to tell them her risk of death is almost 0?" (see the bolded above).

As someone in her late 30's who has been hospitalized by COVID-19, her chances of dying are NOT near zero. Near zero is the chances of dying of ALL 30's who have tested positive.

Again, we can ignore 96.6% of all 30's who have tested positive to calculate her current risk of death. Take the risk of death for all 30's who have tested positive and divide it by 0.034.

Having been hospitalized by the virus, she currently has around a 3% chance of dying from it. Her kids should be worried. It's not extremely improbable that she could die (it's 3%). Nor was it extremely improbably that she got hospitalized by it (it was 3.4%). And unless we develop a vaccine, 70% or more of the population has to get it in order for us to exist this crisis (herd immunity). 

Well, mostly that was a snarky response since him asking me "to talk to the kids" is rather snarky.    Either way, thank you very much for confirming my numbers.   It's good to see them from more sources.

 

[shader]

Unpacking these numbers a bit it shows some truly shocking things about this virus.  If 14% of NY state was/is infected that comes out to 2.7mm infections.  That is just an insane number of infections but shows a very low case fatality rate of something like 0.7%. The case fatality rate if that low is obviously good news but when you tie it to how infectious the disease it is pretty shocking.  

I have been trying to dig up numbers on what to compare it to and obviously the most comparable thing is the flu.  I can't seem to find good numbers on NY state average flu numbers but found an interesting article about the 2018 flu season which is one of the worst most recent flu seasons and NY had 128,000 lab confirmed cases of the flu that year.  Obviously that is under reporting as not everyone who gets the flu gets a test for the flu and many healthier people stay home but just on a rough numbers bases how infectious this disease is compared to the flu is shocking.  If you try to look on a more apples to apples basis (tested flu cases vs. reported case numbers in NY) Worldometers has NY state at 268,000 cases and those numbers are just a six week period or so vs. an entire flue season to get to 128,000.  

I think the real thing about this disease is how infectious it is more than anything else.  

Article I mentioned - https://www.lohud.com/story/news/health/2018/05/22/flu-season-new-york-deaths/632040002/

Been thinking a bit about this study. Two takeaways:

1.  I think it speaks to how good Cuomo has been during this epidemic that he can lay out this study and find very few doubters (on both sides), EVEN THOUGH NONE OF US HAVE SEEN IT.  He's become a trustworthy voice in a sea of untrustworthy voices.  Even so, I'd like to get more details about the study.  But it's astonishing how quickly everyone seems to believe it (me included), based on nothing more than his word.

2.  .7% would be better than the CDC/WHO recommended, but still far worse than the flu.  That being said, New York was overwhelmed and you'd imagine their death rate is going to be higher than other places.  So if .7% represented a worst case scenario, that would be truly good news.

 

[jobarules]

Wow sunlight, humidity, and heat really shorten the half life. Good news for the summer! Get outdoors!

 

[DrJ]

Been thinking a bit about this study. Two takeaways:

1.  I think it speaks to how good Cuomo has been during this epidemic that he can lay out this study and find very few doubters (on both sides), EVEN THOUGH NONE OF US HAVE SEEN IT.  He's become a trustworthy voice in a sea of untrustworthy voices.  Even so, I'd like to get more details about the study.  But it's astonishing how quickly everyone seems to believe it (me included), based on nothing more than his word.

2.  .7% would be better than the CDC/WHO recommended, but still far worse than the flu.  That being said, New York was overwhelmed and you'd imagine their death rate is going to be higher than other places.  So if .7% represented a worst case scenario, that would be truly good news.

Personally I doubt his study.    The NY infection rate is probably way higher than that.