from reading on this its yet another not very “accurate” antibody test.
Does accuracy matter when you are looking at the overall results? You can factor it in. It certainly matters when you are testing individuals and they are going to be altering their behaviour based on the result.
From the above we can be pretty sure that less than say 20% of people have antibodies and I’m sure someone with a grasp of statistics can give a much more accurate number with a confidence interval.
“We’ve unfortunately had six pure, solely coronavirus deaths — six out of 3.3 million people,” County Supervisor Jim Desmond said on the radio show Armstrong & Getty Extra Large Interviews ., The San Diego Union-Tribune reported. San Diego County had reported roughly 190 deaths at the time — the current number is 200.
Desmond went on to criticize California’s lockdown. “I mean, what number are we trying to get to with those odds. I mean, it’s incredible. We want to be safe, and we can do it, but unfortunately, it’s more about control than getting the economy going again and keeping people safe,” he said…
Indeed, the disease has proven most deadly for people with underlying health conditions, so it stands to reason that “pure, solely coronavirus deaths” would be the minority — perhaps even just 3.2 percent of the total recorded deaths, as Desmond suggested.
As of Friday afternoon, there have been 87,218 deaths attributed to COVID-19 in the U.S. If Desmond’s claim is accurate and if that 3.2 percent rate holds across the country, and discounting the death certificate inflation, that would mean there are only 2,891 “pure, solely coronavirus deaths” in the U.S.
This is a rough estimate and it would be extremely difficult to confirm…
…James Agresti and Andrew Glen at Just Facts compared the maximum years of life the lockdowns could possibly save and compared it to the years of life lost from the anxiety surrounding the pandemic, including lockdown anxiety. “The anxiety from reactions to Covid-19—such as business shutdowns, stay-at-home orders, media exaggerations, and legitimate concerns about the virus—will extinguish at least seven times more years of life than can possibly be saved by the lockdowns,” they concluded.
Since COVID-19 robs an average of 12 years of life from its victims, the lockdowns could save no more than 7.4 million years of life. Meanwhile, the anxiety and stress of the pandemic will cost 42.9 million Americans an average of 1.3 years of life, thus destroying 55.7 million years of life.
The coronavirus anxiety and stress cost at least 7.5 times more in terms of years of life than the lockdowns could possibly save, according to Just Facts.
Clearly manyy people have found the ‘new normal’ preferable to the old.
There are certainly attractions to not being forced to commute long distances into cities when working from home. And maybe some city dwellers are preferring the lower footfall as in the article above.
But in the case of Dublin city centre however, is it really that liveable when compared to other cities in Europe? Its always seemed like the development of the past 20 years has been modelled on the premise that the city centre is mainly a commerical area for use by three categories of people,
1 day time commuters/shoppers
2 night time drinkers/partiers
Beyond some of the older working class communities left in places like Summerhill or the Liberties, the vast majority of people who appear to live in the city centre are transient, such as young foreigners/students etc.
With a potential move to working from home removing large sections of category 1 above, social distancing impacting on category 2 and tourism absented for the forseeable, the city centre could conceivably become a bit of a dead zone in many respects.
Of course, the fact that much of the science has simply been wrong, may go some way toward explaining the threat to the status of scientists and science generally emanating from the current set of events around Covid 19