|
Replies: 8
| visibility 2166
|
Orange Phenom [14752]
TigerPulse: 100%
49
|
First there was the Stanford Study and now the real USC has
Apr 22, 2020, 6:26 AM
|
|
done a study whose preliminary results suggest COVID-19 was much more widespread in LA County than originally thought. The USC study points to "approximately 221,000 to 442,000 adults in the county who have had the infection. That estimate is 28 to 55 times higher than the 7,994 confirmed cases of COVID-19 reported to the county by the time of the study in early April."
If these two studies hold true the morbidity of COVID-19 is going to drop like a rock... These studies may also give some credence to Victor Davis Hanson's herd immunity theories for California having avoided the same hot zone of COVID-19 as New York.
https://pressroom.usc.edu/preliminary-results-of-usc-la-county-covid-19-study-released/
|
|
|
|
 |
Commissioner [1204]
TigerPulse: 92%
27
|
Re: First there was the Stanford Study and now the real USC has
Apr 22, 2020, 10:04 AM
|
|
It's a solid bet there are just as many asymptomatic cases as symptomatic. And if the deaths were reported(or not reported) accurately the numbers would be staggeringly lower than they are anyway. The scariest part of this virus is that someone can contract it, be doing fine to the point that they don't require health care and in a flash become septic and expire before anyone realizes they have taken a turn for the worse.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Asst Coach [817]
TigerPulse: 58%
23
|
Why don't they talk about the Diamond Princess more
Apr 22, 2020, 6:02 PM
|
|
It's closed group where everyone was tested:
3700 people, 712 positives, 13 deaths.
Half the positives were asymptomatic.
Only issue data-wise is the older age of cruise passengers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5249]
TigerPulse: 100%
38
|
I have been really amazed
Apr 22, 2020, 11:06 AM
|
|
At how California did not become as impacted by this as New York. 1/7 the cases, about 1/30 the number of deaths. Not sure if they just locked it down early since they were close to Washington or the areas that were affected first were lower population density, but it's impressive
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Phenom [14752]
TigerPulse: 100%
49
|
I've been thinking about this as well - California was set
Apr 22, 2020, 12:20 PM
|
|
to have an explosion of COVID-19 - especially in the big cities where the homeless populations are enormous but it has never really materialized. I'm sure the lockdowns have helped but I don't think that is all that is going on there. Could it be the warmer climate? Could it be that a lot of Californians had COVID-19 early on before it was really determined to be widespread in the USA and they built up some herd immunity? Could it be that California cities are more spread out than NY City? Is there something different in the COVID-19 strain in California than in NY?
I'm starting to think that the use of crowded public mass transit and people per square mile (living in close proximity) have made the difference. Prior to the lockdown, the NY city subway system transited millions of people a day. When you think about it - the subway is as worse than an enclosed airplane as more people are bunched up closer with less separation. I gotta feeling when the research is done, the experts are going to find that the NY City subway system was a huge generator/spreader of the virus among the NY population.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ring of Honor [23530]
TigerPulse: 100%
53
|
Those 2 studies are encouraging, with a couple of caveats...
Apr 22, 2020, 2:22 PM
|
|
1. Both studies have been criticized for both their approach and the math behind it. For ex, Stanford solicited participants via Facebook. Point being, maybe not a good random sample... did a disproportionate number of sick people volunteer to get tested?
2. NYC and LA have big populations, but the density is very different. People/Sq Mile for NYC is several times other big cities. You ride subways & hail cabs in NYC, but almost everybody in LA has a car. More spread out, not stacked like sardines as in NYC.
3. Calif was very proactive and shut everything down earlier. From an article in The Atlantic:
"San Francisco had yet to confirm a single case of the coronavirus when Breed, the city’s 45-year-old first-term mayor, declared a state of emergency in late February".
"...the mayor was urging her constituents on Twitter to “prepare for possible disruption from an outbreak.” That same day, de Blasio was encouraging New Yorkers “to go on with your lives and get out on the town...”
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/04/coronavirus-san-francisco-london-breed/609808/
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5249]
TigerPulse: 100%
38
|
Re: Those 2 studies are encouraging, with a couple of caveats...
Apr 22, 2020, 3:00 PM
|
|
"Breed ordered businesses closed and issued a citywide shelter-in-place policy effective on March 17, at a point when San Francisco had fewer than 50 confirmed coronavirus cases. (California Governor Gavin Newsom followed with a similar statewide order a few days later.) On that date, New York City already had more than 2,000 positive cases. But New York Governor Andrew Cuomo and New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, reluctant either to shutter schools or issue a stay-at-home directive for the nation’s largest city, didn’t take similar action for several days. By the time New York City fully shut down on March 22, more than 10,000 cases were reported across its five boroughs."
Wait, I thought everyone _knew_ in Feb that this thing was going to be crazy and the White House members were the only ones that didn't do anything
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1020]
TigerPulse: 75%
25
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [20843]
TigerPulse: 100%
52
Posts: 14639
Joined: 2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 8
| visibility 2166
|
|
|
50
