As if this wasn't all confusing enough, the worst hit area is named Corona: "The hardest hit ZIP code in the city — 11368 — was the one in Corona, a predominantly Hispanic neighborhood..."
As someone who lived at Corona for a few years I am not surprised as the daily exposure to number of strangers for the residents is probably also one of the highest. The neighborhood is composed of mostly people who cannot work from home (restaurant workers and delivery agents who work in Manhattan). It has a very close proximity to the crowded 7 train and relatively cheap rent in the surrounding area.
That is a co-incidence due the name Corona meaning crown in Latin as well as Spanish along with the zip code being populated with folks presumably in sectors where WFH is not possible.
"From corona (“crown-like circle of light appearing around the sun”) + virus.[1][2] Corona is derived from Latin corōna (“garland, wreath; crown”), from Ancient Greek κορώνη (korṓnē, “something curved; curved stern of a ship; end, point, tip”), from Proto-Indo-European *(s)ker- (“to bend, turn”). The name refers to the characteristic appearance of its virions by electron microscopy, which have a fringe of surface projections creating an image reminiscent of a solar corona.[3] Compare the former genus name Coronavirus."
NYC's Covid data repository[1] has more data in case anybody wants to play around with it. Happy that NYC committed to Open Data[2] initiatives in previous years[3].
I’m getting a paywall on NYT article. But my first thought is, I bet this correlates strongly to property values/density. I don’t know how to build that viz but if anyone is bored with the know how please post it.
Worth noting the limitations listed at the bottom.
> The accuracy of antibody testing varies widely. Moreover, most antibody tests were done for people seeking them out, which means that those who got tested are a self-selecting group and not a random sample.
> It also appears that New Yorkers in some neighborhoods with lower infection rates were more likely to seek antibody testing.
> In some wealthy and largely white ZIP codes in Manhattan, some 30 percent of people may have gotten an antibody test. But in Corona, for instance, where the positive rate was highest, less than a quarter of people got tested.
30% and "less than a quarter" ... that actually seems rather homogenous. Variations in testing of 10-15% across very different neighborhoods seems rather reasonable. Given the disparity in impact that a positive test means to one's working life, I was expecting something more like 1% and 30%.
The test for me was $165, and my insurance would not cover it.
My recovery was punctuated with almost daily calls from the local hospital i tested at asking me to come back for a follow-up antibody screen for research purposes.
This was $400. It was not covered by insurance so I skipped.
I was then contacted by my insurance company asking if I had completed the antibody test and told it was covered, so I passed the antibody test and went back to work. Three weeks later I wound up fighting $600 from a hospital collections agency for covid ab lab work.
My disease advice is this: If possible, avoid being a working class American.
I think I saw a reddit post about hospital collection agencies, there was some good advice there; I'm not an american citizen so I'm in no position to give advice; I hope you sort it out without paying the 600$.
>> 27% of people have antibodies, thus 2.4 million were infected.
The immune system isn't just about antibodies. having antibodies, for this disease, means you were exposed relatively recently. People who had the disease months ago are now showing a lack of antibodies. That doesn't mean that their immune system isn't primed for this disease, just that they currently do not display antibodies in their bloodstream. Thus it is likely many more than 2.4million americans have been infected/exposed, potentially drawing down the death rate well below 1%.
For a good percentage of the population it is about as deadly as the flu though, perhaps even less. For a smaller percentage of people it’s far more deadly than the flu.
I still think we could have gotten through this quicker if we didn’t lock down the young and healthy, while taking extra care to keep at risk populations safe.
Agree completely that this is far more dangerous and deadly than the flu (especially as a New Yorker who knows multiple people who have died from this disease). That being said, there is some selection bias in these results as those who were tested were much more likely to have been infected. These tests were not done in randomly selected people. Most who get tested have reason to believe they were infected (or were at high risk for having been infected). The fact that the 27% of the group of high risk people who chose to get tested showed they had the disease doesn't mean that 27% of all New Yorkers had the disease.
If 27% of the NYC population have antibodies, and half of people infected don't test positive for antibodies (too long after infection, mild infection that was defeated without antibodies, etc), then NYC is at or near herd immunity already.
There's a lot of studies saying that antibodies go below detectable levels within 2-3 months, even though that doesn't seem to mean that these people are no longer immune.
It has been said that there is some likelihood that exposure to a previous Coronavirus made some people partially resistant to Covid-19. Would that mean that there is a chance that some people test positive for Covid-19 antibodies due to a different strain of Coronavirus?
You are probably talking about how previous coronavirus exposure seems to give some people some level of T-cell protection against SARS-CoV-2. T-cells are a different part of the immune system from immunoglobulin proteins, which is what these antibody tests measure. So it's more likely that those people would show up as a negative on this test because they wouldn't have the right immunoglobulins in their blood.
It's also possible that some people are fighting off COVID via a T-Cell response while not developing significant immunoglobulins or that immunoglobulin levels fade quickly while T-Cells don't. Those people can also test negative for immunoglobulin antibodies despite fighting off the disease.
So it's actually more likely that these tests are significantly under counting exposed people in total. But these tests aren't perfect and for any specific person, they could give you a false positive or a false negative result.
A positive test result shows you may have antibodies from an infection with the virus that causes COVID-19. However, there is a chance a positive result means that you have antibodies from an infection with a virus from the same family of viruses (called coronaviruses), such as the one that causes the common cold.
I have not read enough on this specific NYC testing to know for sure if they control for that somehow, or if controlling for it is even possible. Seems like it would be a factor, though.
I don't think so. Antibodies are pretty specific. However it's possible and there is some data to suggest that some people have T-Cell level immunity to SARS-Cov-2 that was likely induced by exposure to an earlier coronavirus.
My read is that test subjects were entirely self-selected, which mean strong bias to those who suspected (or feared) exposure, had access to testing, and (where and when necessary) could pay for same (I don't know whether or when NYC instituted universal free test access).
That's in addition to any issues with test accuracy, procedures, or reporting itself.
The information tells a story. It's not immediately evident just how accurate that story is, an uncertainty which may further muddy conversations and decisionmaking regarding the outbreak.
As any statistician worth their salt will tell you, sample size is vastly less relevant than sample method, and a rigorous, though small (a few hundred, perhaps 1,000 or so randomly selected casess) would be highly valuable. The alternative (at far greater cost) is near-total testing. Itally have conducted comprehensive testing within specific small towns. Some smaller countries and territories (Andorra, Faroe Islands, Monaco, Luxembourg) have attained 100% test coverage. These still suggest 1-6.% CFR.
New York City's test coverage, whilst large, could still remain quite biased.
I’m glad to see NYC drive testing like this. There’s still a lot of decisions that need to be made in our collective efforts against further harm.
Really it comes down to 3 dimensions:
1. Where do we direct tests
2. Where do we allocate non-pharmaceutical interventions
3. When ready, where do we direct a vaccine
These are all questions that we can find a signal for within the data. There are obvious constraints, such as reagent and pharmaceutical availability and the viability of certain policies.
I’m flabbergasted and agitated that on the federal level we haven’t come to a consensus on testing and data. If there is anything certain to increase harm relative to where it could be, it’s this “slow down testing” narrative.
So in those 50% antibody areas in this unethical experiment we gain the knowledge, if herd immunity is possible, I guess. Or - if it's like the flu - USA just gradually weeds out everyone that can't handle this specific disease while still rotating seasonal waves for everyone else.
[+] [-] williamstein|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wzsddtc|5 years ago|reply
Edit: grammar.
[+] [-] hpkuarg|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 0xcafecafe|5 years ago|reply
"From corona (“crown-like circle of light appearing around the sun”) + virus.[1][2] Corona is derived from Latin corōna (“garland, wreath; crown”), from Ancient Greek κορώνη (korṓnē, “something curved; curved stern of a ship; end, point, tip”), from Proto-Indo-European *(s)ker- (“to bend, turn”). The name refers to the characteristic appearance of its virions by electron microscopy, which have a fringe of surface projections creating an image reminiscent of a solar corona.[3] Compare the former genus name Coronavirus."
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/coronavirus#Etymology
https://www.unitedstateszipcodes.org/11368/
[+] [-] sharadov|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] otoburb|5 years ago|reply
[1] https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/covid/covid-19-data.page
[2] https://opendata.cityofnewyork.us/
[3] https://datasmart.ash.harvard.edu/news/article/new-york-city...
[+] [-] conductr|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mayneack|5 years ago|reply
> The accuracy of antibody testing varies widely. Moreover, most antibody tests were done for people seeking them out, which means that those who got tested are a self-selecting group and not a random sample.
> It also appears that New Yorkers in some neighborhoods with lower infection rates were more likely to seek antibody testing.
> In some wealthy and largely white ZIP codes in Manhattan, some 30 percent of people may have gotten an antibody test. But in Corona, for instance, where the positive rate was highest, less than a quarter of people got tested.
[+] [-] sandworm101|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nimbius|5 years ago|reply
The test for me was $165, and my insurance would not cover it.
My recovery was punctuated with almost daily calls from the local hospital i tested at asking me to come back for a follow-up antibody screen for research purposes.
This was $400. It was not covered by insurance so I skipped.
I was then contacted by my insurance company asking if I had completed the antibody test and told it was covered, so I passed the antibody test and went back to work. Three weeks later I wound up fighting $600 from a hospital collections agency for covid ab lab work.
My disease advice is this: If possible, avoid being a working class American.
[+] [-] raducu|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] raducu|5 years ago|reply
23k deaths, thus a 1% mortality rate.
I guess this the final nail in the "this is just a flu" .
[+] [-] sandworm101|5 years ago|reply
The immune system isn't just about antibodies. having antibodies, for this disease, means you were exposed relatively recently. People who had the disease months ago are now showing a lack of antibodies. That doesn't mean that their immune system isn't primed for this disease, just that they currently do not display antibodies in their bloodstream. Thus it is likely many more than 2.4million americans have been infected/exposed, potentially drawing down the death rate well below 1%.
[+] [-] aaron695|5 years ago|reply
1% would be to high given the data elsewhere.
Did the population this study looks at have a death toll of 23k and what was the population exactly?
I'd think a top priority in the world would be to tie this number down properly. And this study seems solid.
The fact children are a higher infection rate in the study is not good, because it implies the mortality rate is higher again than 1%.
[+] [-] AuryGlenz|5 years ago|reply
I still think we could have gotten through this quicker if we didn’t lock down the young and healthy, while taking extra care to keep at risk populations safe.
[+] [-] StanislavPetrov|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nradov|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DuskStar|5 years ago|reply
There's a lot of studies saying that antibodies go below detectable levels within 2-3 months, even though that doesn't seem to mean that these people are no longer immune.
[+] [-] oh_sigh|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dumbfounder|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ageitgey|5 years ago|reply
It's also possible that some people are fighting off COVID via a T-Cell response while not developing significant immunoglobulins or that immunoglobulin levels fade quickly while T-Cells don't. Those people can also test negative for immunoglobulin antibodies despite fighting off the disease.
So it's actually more likely that these tests are significantly under counting exposed people in total. But these tests aren't perfect and for any specific person, they could give you a false positive or a false negative result.
[+] [-] shireboy|5 years ago|reply
A positive test result shows you may have antibodies from an infection with the virus that causes COVID-19. However, there is a chance a positive result means that you have antibodies from an infection with a virus from the same family of viruses (called coronaviruses), such as the one that causes the common cold.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/testing/serology-o...
I have not read enough on this specific NYC testing to know for sure if they control for that somehow, or if controlling for it is even possible. Seems like it would be a factor, though.
[+] [-] zatertip|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] UncleOxidant|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dredmorbius|5 years ago|reply
My read is that test subjects were entirely self-selected, which mean strong bias to those who suspected (or feared) exposure, had access to testing, and (where and when necessary) could pay for same (I don't know whether or when NYC instituted universal free test access).
That's in addition to any issues with test accuracy, procedures, or reporting itself.
The information tells a story. It's not immediately evident just how accurate that story is, an uncertainty which may further muddy conversations and decisionmaking regarding the outbreak.
As any statistician worth their salt will tell you, sample size is vastly less relevant than sample method, and a rigorous, though small (a few hundred, perhaps 1,000 or so randomly selected casess) would be highly valuable. The alternative (at far greater cost) is near-total testing. Itally have conducted comprehensive testing within specific small towns. Some smaller countries and territories (Andorra, Faroe Islands, Monaco, Luxembourg) have attained 100% test coverage. These still suggest 1-6.% CFR.
New York City's test coverage, whilst large, could still remain quite biased.
[+] [-] bransonf|5 years ago|reply
Really it comes down to 3 dimensions:
1. Where do we direct tests
2. Where do we allocate non-pharmaceutical interventions
3. When ready, where do we direct a vaccine
These are all questions that we can find a signal for within the data. There are obvious constraints, such as reagent and pharmaceutical availability and the viability of certain policies.
I’m flabbergasted and agitated that on the federal level we haven’t come to a consensus on testing and data. If there is anything certain to increase harm relative to where it could be, it’s this “slow down testing” narrative.
[+] [-] irishgeoff5|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] quotz|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] propelol|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jessaustin|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sod|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] collyw|5 years ago|reply
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5Z6wdu1eI0&t=270s