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

The news coming out of New York is beginning to trend more and more positively this past week.

the testing that Cuomo demand last week as needed befor the state could think about reopening has begun and the preliminary results are promising.

New York Times

More than one in five people who were tested for virus antibodies in N.Y.C. had them.

More than 21 percent of around 1,300 people in New York City who were tested for coronavirus antibodies this week were found to have them, Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo said on Thursday.

The results were from a state program that tested 3,000 supermarket customers across New York State. Nearly 14 percent of the tests came back positive, Mr. Cuomo said.

Antibody tests are intended to signal whether a person may have built immunity to virus. They do not test for the virus itself.

But if the state’s numbers indicated the true incidence of the virus, they would mean that more than 1.7 million people in New York City, and more than 2.6 million people statewide, have already been infected.

That is far greater than the 250,000 confirmed cases of the virus itself that the state has recorded.

Now again these are preliminary results of the testing that will continue; so of course it is expected to change. But it does bolster the preliminary results of the same testing being conducted in other states.


Let's hope the good news continues

a reply to: DanDanDat

But if the state’s numbers indicated the true incidence of the virus, they would mean that more than 1.7 million people in New York City, and more than 2.6 million people statewide, have already been infected.

That is far greater than the 250,000 confirmed cases of the virus itself that the state has recorded.

That and the Los Angeles numbers for antibodies tells the real tale.

The number of people in the United States exposed to the virus is a decimal point (at least) over what is being reported.

Therefore the mortality rate has been MASSIVELY overstated.

For political purposes.

Anyone had enough yet?

I don't believe a word Cuomo says.

I would imagine if this is what he is reporting, the true number is probably closer to 63%.

Even at 21% it means that COVID-1984 has been here a lot longer than they are reporting and that this whole fiasco is a manufactured crisis.

i'd like to see the 21% or 260 people who have the Antibodies broken down into race and age.

Race Bating? No just curious.

a reply to: DanDanDat
Not sure why this is good news.

I thought it was a given that the people exposed and not part of the stats was really high.

Crunching the numbers given, it would mean, at this time, that the mortality rate is 0.8% (current deaths 20,861/2.6M = 0.00802), the flu is rated at 0.1% and it is estimated that it kills 60K a year.

That would mean that covid might kill 8 x 60K = 480K.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: DanDanDat
Not sure why this is good news.

I thought it was a given that the people exposed and not part of the stats was really high.

Crunching the numbers given, it would mean, at this time, that the mortality rate is 0.8% (current deaths 20,861/2.6M = 0.00802), the flu is rated at 0.1% and it is estimated that it kills 60K a year.

That would mean that covid might kill 8 x 60K = 480K.

Its good news because that is a far lower number of death than first expected?

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: DanDanDat
Not sure why this is good news.

I thought it was a given that the people exposed and not part of the stats was really high.

Crunching the numbers given, it would mean, at this time, that the mortality rate is 0.8% (current deaths 20,861/2.6M = 0.00802), the flu is rated at 0.1% and it is estimated that it kills 60K a year.

That would mean that covid might kill 8 x 60K = 480K.

That's the rub though, isn't it?

We still don't know the real numbers.

What we DO know, however, is that so far we have shut our economy down for something that is killing less people then traffic fatalities.

Although now we have less traffic fatalities, what with a lot less people having a job to drive to...

a reply to: DanDanDat
It is also much higher than the 100K+ revision and the now 60K being sold to the public.

a reply to: Lumenari
That is irrelevant.

The politicization of this event doesn't change the numbers.

Also, I'm seeing 38,800 for traffic fatalities in the US in a year and 49,156 in a month due to CV-19.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: DanDanDat
It is also much higher than the 100K+ revision and the now 60K being sold to the public.

I don't know where you buy your news from; but no one in the mainstream has ever tried to sell news that stated only 60k people would die in the US because of this virus.

You should probably disregard information you get predominantly from message board arguments.

If you cant see how this is good news; it can only mean you want more people to die. Why is that?

a reply to: DanDanDat

Here is one example, not that this is where I read it first, just the first to pop up in a search.
Fauci lowers U.S. coronavirus death forecast to 60,000, says social distancing is working

That model now projects 60,415 people will die in the U.S. by Aug. 4, compared to previous projections that approached 100,000.

ETA: Crunching numbers and seeing what they give doesn't mean that is what I want.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: DanDanDat

Here is one example, not that this is where I read it first, just the first to pop up in a search.
Fauci lowers U.S. coronavirus death forecast to 60,000, says social distancing is working

That model now projects 60,415 people will die in the U.S. by Aug. 4, compared to previous projections that approached 100,000.

ETA: Crunching numbers and seeing what they give doesn't mean that is what I want.

That is not a projection of total deaths.

It is a projection through Aug. 4.

And with social distancing in effect.

a reply to: DanDanDat

It is still much lower than the numbers I got from the calcs I performed and no where near the numbers registered in the last month.

All I said was that these new numbers presented in the OP are not necessarily good news because the death rate calculated with them is still high.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: DanDanDat

It is still much lower than the numbers I got from the calcs I performed and no where near the numbers registered in the last month.

All I said was that these new numbers presented in the OP are not necessarily good news because the death rate calculated with them is still high.

Well of course, even a single life lost is not "good news"

However when the country thought it proper to lock itself down it was because the project number of deaths could reach as an order of magnitudes higher or more.

Now that it is becoming more and more evident this is not the case; the country is free to start exploring alternate means of dealing with the virus.

Thats good news.

a reply to: daskakik

It's good news because it seems the system can handle the spread of the virus. What we don't know is how many people became infected BEFORE the lockdown. I have a feeling most of those occurred the economy was still opened.

If there was a virus similar to this flying around before, people's immune systems might actually have responded to this and fought it off with only a sniffle and small cough. It could have got here and we were considering it the flu. I grew up in a time where if you had a fever they called it the flu and no fever classified it as a cold. This type of similar virus could have been mistakenly identified as the flu or an unknown virus. If people are exposed to it, their bodies will start making antigens against it. Fighting it may not be novel. If the people are not exposed to it their immune systems may not boost IGM or IGA markers and not have the antigen circulating.

The pinial gland and I think it was the pituitary gland go into factory production of antigens when a person is exposed, till then there are very small numbers of the antigen circulating in our system. If we have lots of a specific antigen loading these specialized immune cells, then they can not detect new viruses that we are exposed to. This is a problem with vaccines, there might not be diverse detection of microbes, our bodies are conditioned to fight things that might not be present at the expense of losing ability to fight different microbes in the class, in this case other viruses detection may be put on hold because the immune system is busy fighting things it doesn't need to be fighting at the time.

I know, using common sense when discussing medicine is prohibited, I am supposed to blindly believe what the people profiting off of vaccines are telling us.

I went today to a major hospital in my area to try to get the antibody test but they said they were not able to test for that, which was surprising to me.
There are 9 urgent care facilities here in Michigan that the news said are going to start antibody testing tomorrow.
There is one less than a mile from my house and I am going to try to go tomorrow depending on how many people are there, I don’t want to sit there for hours waiting.
I was sick at the end of Feb through the first 2 weeks of March, and I suspect that I had it.
But who knows?

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: DanDanDat
Not sure why this is good news.

I thought it was a given that the people exposed and not part of the stats was really high.

Crunching the numbers given, it would mean, at this time, that the mortality rate is 0.8% (current deaths 20,861/2.6M = 0.00802), the flu is rated at 0.1% and it is estimated that it kills 60K a year.

That would mean that covid might kill 8 x 60K = 480K.

Whose numbers ?
What numbers ?
MIGHT ?
Try again.

Anyone of the fear mongerers want to ask me if my sentiments have changed from last week, and the week before, and the week before?

a reply to: DanDanDat

Like I said in my first post. It was a given that many infected with mild symptoms never make the stats. That is true for flu as well as CV-19.

The only thing those results do is allow for an estimate to be made on a previously nebulous piece of data. The lack of good news is that even with that new number, the death rate is still high.

The 2.2M estimate was a worst case scenario. I mean, fear-mongering is their intended purpose.