[booleandilemma]

I know this isn't the popular opinion, but aren't we blowing the virus out of proportion a bit?

Don't something like 20-25% of all New Yorkers already have antibodies? Doesn't that show the virus isn't that dangerous? The body count would be in the millions by now.

[tzs]

> Don't something like 20-25% of all New Yorkers already have antibodies? Doesn't that show the virus isn't that dangerous? The body count would be in the millions by now.

For many viral diseases the severity in a particular individual depends on how much of the virus they were exposed do. I don't believe that know yet if COVID-19 is such a disease.

For such diseases, you could have a case where a large fraction of the population is going to get it regardless of whether you continue as normal or you social distance and stay at home as much as feasible, but in the former case most get a large enough dose to get very sick or die and the the latter case most get a small enough dose to not get sick or just get mildly sick. In both cases you would have a large fraction with antibodies.

[DennisP]

12.3% when they completed their antibody survey. Taking their death count a week later (because 2 weeks to develop antibodies, 3 weeks to die), and comparing to 12.3% of the NYS population, that equates to 1.1% fatality. An antibody survey in Spain got the same answer.

Herd immunity won't happen until about half the population has had the virus, and 1.1% of 330M is 1.8 million people dead. I'd call that fairly dangerous.

Also consider that many of the survivors end up with serious long-term health problems.

[jonahbenton]

With all respect, I find this perspective incomprehensible, astonishing, deeply depressing.

My take, as a NYer, as someone working on a COVID project, as someone who so far has been lucky to only know of one serious hospitalization in my extended circle- it is exceptionally dangerous. I use the phrase "Russian Roulette" and I stand by that.

1% of likely-infected New Yorkers have died. Probably at least 80% of the NYC population remains at risk.

It does not just target and kill the elderly and infirm. Of teens and pre-teens, New York City has seen thousands of infections, hundreds of hospitalizations, many dozens of deaths. Every age, every demographic impacted.

There is so much we don't know about exposure to infection dynamics, about symptomatic vs asymptomatic progression, about medium and long term impacts.

Yes, life presents all kinds of dangers, people have to work, all sorts of essential jobs have to be staffed, the absolute failure of the Federal government "leadership" to do even the minimum from a financial, logistic, or medical perspective is unforgivably, sociopathically criminal and reduces the practical options on the table-

ALL that aside this virus is no effing joke.

The only reason body counts US-wide are not in the millions is because of shutdowns and various bits of behavioral and epidemiological good fortune the details of which we will only figure out later.

It is almost certainly the case that 90% or more of the US population remain vulnerable, and if people become careless, deaths will rise again.

One more point- I have been in many internet arguments about the various statistical/aggregate measures, eg suggestions that only 30% antibody prevalence may be enough for herd immunity, studies of superspreaders, etc-

Aggregate statistics are BS.

They tell you nothing about you or your family's individual risk in any specific situation. The number of people "doing everything right" yet winding up in the hospital is countless (as are the people doing everything wrong and remaining well). We know a lot yet are still just looking for the keys under the streetlamp.

We are not done with this. This may only be the end of the beginning.

Stay safe. Cheers.

[theduder99]

A++ post, almost got me!

[htnsao]

Yeah for most it's just a dry cough, if that.

The worry worts and the pansies have wrecked the economy.