Cuomo Says 21 percent of Those Tested in N.Y.C. Had Virus Antibodies

a reply to: Daughter2

But, that was already known. Even the 2.2M estimate means only 0.6% would succumb to the virus. So, 99.4% would survive.

ETA: Sorry, I took your post to mean that people's immune system could handle the virus. Upon rereading it I see you might have meant the health system in the US. I don't know. I'd guess that hospitals in hot spots might get swamped and not handle the number of patients very well while others might have room to spare.

I guess ventilators available might also be a factor, although the use of ventilators is currently being questioned.

a reply to: Gothmog
Maybe you can get numbers from a source you trust and show us what you come up with.

a reply to: DanDanDat

I hate to inform that this may not be good news but irrelevant since the WHO has put this out

WHO says no evidence shows that having coronavirus prevents a second infection

The World Health Organization is warning that people who have had Covid-19 are not necessarily immune by the presence of antibodies from getting the virus again.

"There is no evidence yet that people who have had Covid-19 will not get a second infection," WHO said in a scientific brief published Friday.

link

It would be terrible that folks who had the virus are still susceptible to it so these antibodies aren't that valuable to the individual and won't protect them from another bout with the virus.

Let's hope they get the conclusive evidence that people are immune

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Gothmog
Maybe you can get numbers from a source you trust and show us what you come up with.

I was asking for YOUR numbers and where you got them.
You didn't have any , did you ?
"Just words , just speeches"

originally posted by: Gothmog
I was asking for YOUR numbers and where you got them.
You didn't have any , did you?

CDC numbers and the ones in the OP. The latter were obvious since I used them in the calcs and the former not so much, but now you know.

You don't seem to have any numbers from alternate sources so "Just words , just speeches" seems to fit your posts.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Gothmog
I was asking for YOUR numbers and where you got them.
You didn't have any , did you?

CDC numbers and the ones in the OP. The latter were obvious since I used them in the calcs and the former not so much, but now you know.

You don't seem to have any numbers from alternate sources so "Just words , just speeches" seems to fit your posts.

Still waiting...

a reply to: daskakik

This is good news because it shows herd immunity developing.

The Swedes are more deliberate and philosophical about it.

a reply to: Salander
Herd immunity would develop anyway. It would just slow down the pressure on the hospitals.

The swedes are doing pretty bad and have asked parliament to grant them powers to lock-down.
sverigesradio.se...

The proposal, which will cover a three-month period, would grant the government the power to limit gatherings, close supermarkets, nightclubs, gyms, cafes and sporting arenas. It would also make possible the limiting of access to buses, trains, flights and harbours.

a reply to: Gothmog

Still waiting on what?

ETA: I guess you want links:
www.cdc.gov...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.worldometers.info...

a reply to: daskakik

Except for old and infirm, the Swedes DO NOT practice lockdown. They do not practice enforced social distancing, and they do not practice forced mask wearing.

a reply to: Salander
And they have more deaths per capita than their neighbors, who did lockdown.

That contradicts the claim that it is working for them.

a reply to: daskakik

Italy locked down quickly, and watched as deaths continued to climb for several weeks or a month.

Lockdown does more harm than good.

a reply to: Salander
Italy started locking down heavily affected areas and even then it was too late. They were blindsided.

The death tolls in Finland and Norway, when compared to Sweden, seem to refute your claim that lockdown does more harm than good.

Maybe the over reaction in the US is doing more harm than good, given the size of the US, but these are small countries with 1-3% the population of the US.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Salander
And they have more deaths per capita than their neighbors, who did lockdown.

That contradicts the claim that it is working for them.

And it does not establish a cause and effect relationship. There are many variables to effect those statistics.

a reply to: Salander
Yes there are many variables but the difference is significant (over 6 times the difference) and one of the obvious factors is the lock-downs.

Now, if someone can dig up one or more variables that would be affecting those stats then we should be taking them into account, until then there is nothing to establish a cause and effect relationship with these nebulous variables.

a reply to: SKEPTEK

Either it's been here longer or it has spread wider and with less death and calamity than they projected meaning it's overall a much milder illness than they want us to believe.

I'm not going to pretend it isn't very serious for some people and that it can't kill. It clearly does, and it obviously has heavy implications for those who are elderly and those who have underlying health conditions, but for the vast majority of people under a certain age and who are healthy, it hasn't been the big, bad killer they advertised to get us all to go on house arrest and surrender our civil liberties and constitutional rights.

They're killing the economy and civil society right along with it based on a false premise.

a reply to: daskakik

There are some very prudent measures that can and should be taken, but at the same time there is also lots of overkill. I see lots of overkill, and it is compounding now daily.

A large part of the problem is that the so-called experts don't trust the "peasants" so they dictate rather that explaining, educating and asking. They treat the "peasants" like children, so the children rebel especially when the experts begin to look like fools because their gloom scenarios don't materialize in almost every area except the most heavily populated ones.

a reply to: ketsuko

Honestly, they asked for many of those measures, that could and should have been taken, to be taken voluntarily and many people just gave no effs. That led to the overkill.

The experts looking like fools is a POV on a situation that really hasn't played out yet. April proved that this bug is worse than the flu, even based on the flu estimates provided by the CDC.

Deaths in NY/NJ seem to be going down but the other states are showing increasing numbers which means they are driving the high mortality rate seen lately. I remember people saying the US was going to reach peak a couple of weeks ago but that was just wishful thinking. The death/recovery rate seems to be looking better. Hopefully that is because protocols are being adjusted to better treat the sick and that should have a positive affect on the final numbers.

a reply to: daskakik

Part of the case climb is that they have finally begun testing some venues systematically instead of just testing those who come in ill.

For example there was a huge just in cases for Missouri over the past week not because people are suddenly falling ill but because they systematically tested several meat processing facilities and a prison. Not surprisingly, they turned up a lot of new cases but most were asymptomatic meaning they most likely never would have been tested because those people never would have shown up at the doctor or hospital since they did not feel ill.

Those cases were always there.

a reply to: ketsuko

I wasn't talking about the case climb but the death climb.

ETA: The case climb really only changes the CFR, which really won't be known until all this is over.