Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
7 hours ago, impulse said:

Probably not. 

 

I suspect there's some bias in who took the time and effort to get tested.

Agreed been stuck in New York City. I highly doubt those numbers are correct. Some boroughs of the city have more than others. Like Queens is heavily testing positive in certain areas. It's not as bad as it seems as the news makes it out to be. 

 

Posted

Responses to the tweet raise the questions of methodology and bias. But I do believe that the infection rate in the US is much higher than people think it is.

 

This article suggests significant transmissions in February in California:

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-04-11/bay-area-coronavirus-deaths-signs-of-earlier-spread-california

which makes sense, since Chinese travelers were pouring into the US, just like here (in lower numbers of course).

 

Considering that doctors believe the infections can double in as few as 4 days, and you have some serious numbers. And if you look at the cases across the US, which essentially blankets the country, and think about the travel required to create that coverage, I suspect the virus was traveling the country long before it was considered an issue. It suggests that the US is possibly well past 5M.

  • Like 1
Posted (edited)

Any idea how many of the positives were asymptomatic? There seems to be more and more evidence from these early antibody tests that there were a lot of them already in January.

Edited by DrTuner

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...