"Coronavirus and the US" or "We are all going to die!!!!"

[Loren Pechtel]

As of today, NYC's official death toll has surpassed Wuhan's at 2,562 vs. 2,535.

And no, NYC is not bigger, Wuhan is.

Neither count is at all accurate due to uncounted deaths. New York's are at least 50% of the reported figure, we don't even know for Wuhan.

It's now the #1 killer in the US, though, passing heart disease.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Keep the Parks Open: Public green spaces are good for the immune system and the mind—and they can be rationed to allow for social distancing. - Zeynep Tufekci -The Atlantic

I concur so hard. It depends on the local circumstances, but around me, the sidewalks are getting too crowded, while the much wider trails and open space parks are closed off. And a park is not as risky as a store, viruses don't spread as easy outdoors than in. Hopefully, we'll get this sorted right.

I don't know about our parks, we don't have anything impressive in that regard. I know most of our hiking trails are closed because they were too crowded. You're basically limited to off-trail hiking and I'm not exactly inclined to do that solo.

Sure, it's probably safer than the store, but why take a risk you don't have to?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Neither count is at all accurate due to uncounted deaths.

Wonderful. As we begin to get a grip on what actually happened, the conspiracy nuts will just love tge fact that the numbers will increase AFTER the virus is contained...

 

[DBT]

I wonder how many are infected but experience very mild symptoms which they ignore. Not only spreading the virus but skewing the statistics.

 

[crazyfingers]

I wonder how many are infected but experience very mild symptoms which they ignore. Not only spreading the virus but skewing the statistics.

Than is the biggest unknown in this whole thing and why there has to be massive fast results testing everywhere.

 

[fromderinside]

Looking at the curves for all states, they are all bending toward being flat around the same time =/- 10 days. But testing efforts seem to be tracking where the action is right now. Methinks the curve changes and spread are correlated making results self fulfilling dreams for those who want to say "go back to work."

We could be in deep shit.

 

[Jokodo]

As of today, NYC's official death toll has surpassed Wuhan's at 2,562 vs. 2,535.

And no, NYC is not bigger, Wuhan is.

Neither count is at all accurate due to uncounted deaths. New York's are at least 50% of the reported figure, we don't even know for Wuhan.

It's now the #1 killer in the US, though, passing heart disease.

I did write the *official* death toll.

The New York City figure is also inaccurate because I copied the wrong column from the city's data - 2,562 was, at the time of writing, the number of deceased with identified comorbidities. The number of all deceased was at that time over 3200, and as of yesterday 3600.

If you want a dig into the city's raw data: https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/covid/covid-19-data.page#download

 

[bilby]

All mortality and morbidity figures during pandemics tend to be wrong, for the simple reason that medical staff have more important things to do than their paperwork.

If you want to know how this whole thing unfolded, you will need to read a history of it in a few decades time - and likely the historian will say a lot of things like "although this estimate is still considered to be significantly less than the actual number, due to the failure to record deaths occurring outside a clinical context, and to the large number of sub-clinical cases that never came to official attention".

Only the worst kind of bureaucrat tries to insist on accurate record keeping by medical professionals during a pandemic.

 

[ruby sparks]

I wonder how many are infected but experience very mild symptoms which they ignore. Not only spreading the virus but skewing the statistics.

Data from Iceland (2nd highest number of tests per capita of all world countries, behind only the Faroe Islands) suggests 50% of cases may have no symptoms.

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/04/01/europe/iceland-testing-coronavirus-intl/index.html

 

[blastula]

A harrowing article about post-ventilator recovery.

After ICU, Coronavirus Patients' Ordeal Is Far From Over - Wall Street Journal[VIMEO][/VIMEO]

 

[ruby sparks]

I wonder how many are infected but experience very mild symptoms which they ignore. Not only spreading the virus but skewing the statistics.

Data from Iceland (2nd highest number of tests per capita of all world countries, behind only the Faroe Islands) suggests 50% of cases may have no symptoms.

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/04/01/europe/iceland-testing-coronavirus-intl/index.html

It has now been pointed out to me that the headline of this article is misleading. It doesn't indicate that 50% of cases get no symptoms. It's only a snapshot, and many of the 50% could easily have had symptoms later.

 

[lpetrich]

Kamala Harris on Twitter: "This pandemic is exploiting long existing environmental injustices all across the country. Clean air is a human right but too many communities are suffering from toxic air pollution. We must fight for clean air for all. https://t.co/JewwDkJ9U7" / Twitter
noting
New Research Links Air Pollution to Higher Coronavirus Death Rates - The New York Times

Coronavirus patients in areas that had high levels of air pollution before the pandemic are more likely to die from the infection than patients in cleaner parts of the country, according to a new nationwide study that offers the first clear link between long-term exposure to pollution and Covid-19 death rates.

In an analysis of 3,080 counties in the United States, researchers at the Harvard University T.H. Chan School of Public Health found that higher levels of the tiny, dangerous particles in air known as PM 2.5 were associated with higher death rates from the disease.

noting
COVID-19 PM2.5
Abstract:

Background: United States government scientists estimate that COVID-19 may kill between 100,000 and 240,000 Americans. The majority of the pre-existing conditions that increase the risk of death for COVID-19 are the same diseases that are affected by long-term exposure to air pollution. We investigate whether long-term average exposure to fine particulate matter (PM2.5) increases the risk of COVID-19 deaths in the United States.

Methods: Data was collected for approximately 3,000 counties in the United States (98% of the population) up to April 04, 2020. We fit zero-inflated negative binomial mixed models using county level COVID-19 deaths as the outcome and county level long-term average of PM2.5 as the exposure. We adjust by population size, hospital beds, number of individuals tested, weather, and socioeconomic and behavioral variables including, but not limited to obesity and smoking. We include a random intercept by state to account for potential correlation in counties within the same state.

Results: We found that an increase of only 1 μg/m3 in PM2.5 is associated with a 15% increase in the COVID-19 death rate, 95% confidence interval (CI) (5%, 25%). Results are statistically significant and robust to secondary and sensitivity analyses.

Conclusions: A small increase in long-term exposure to PM2.5 leads to a large increase in COVID-19 death rate, with the magnitude of increase 20 times that observed for PM2.5 and all-cause mortality. The study results underscore the importance of continuing to enforce existing air pollution regulations to protect human health both during and after the COVID-19 crisis. The data and code are publicly available.

So PM2.5 dust injures its breathers' lungs and makes them more vulnerable to he COVID-19 virus.

 

[lpetrich]

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "I deal w/ a lot of violent threats, vitriol, etc.
But I never get more hate aimed at me than when I address racial inequities.
If some people think racial disparities are as much a myth as other issues I discuss, then why do they get so much more violent & angry on this topic?" / Twitter

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "To all the people that said “there’s no evidence racial disparities in COVID impact exist.”
I represent the most impacted neighborhoods in the country: Corona & East Elmhurst.
These are overwhelmingly Black & Latino neighborhoods. Louis Armstrong’s house is here. https://t.co/NPAXdR1GHS" / Twitter
noting
Mark D. Levine on Twitter: "Michigan has just started reporting on coronavirus cases by race.
African Americans are 14% of that state's population but 40% of deaths.
This pandemic is reflecting--and exacerbating--inequality.
NYC should publish this data as well, so we get the picture here. https://t.co/u0UeWZfJvA" / Twitter

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "For people who started screeching when I named environmental racism+COVID:
Black + Brown communities have long been treated as dump yards. Trucking + waste sites spike respiratory & other disease. The Bronx already had some of the highest asthma rates in the US.
Then COVID hit. https://t.co/EWoXdLtu8H" / Twitter
noting
Mercedes Williams on Twitter: "Breaking: @NYGovCuomo releases preliminary data on coronavirus deaths broken down by race. https://t.co/R2NIgSb61D" / Twitter - with a picture of a table of results.
Blacks, Hispanics suffer more deaths in proportion to their populations, Whites, Asians suffer fewer deaths.

Then
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "East Elmhurst is a historically Black community in the shadow of LGA’s fumes.
This is why environmental justice is a core principle of the Green New Deal.
We must acknowledge the impact of racial disparity in power + policy if we are going to fix this. https://t.co/ufP0S0RbaD" / Twitter

 

[J842P]

Kamala Harris on Twitter: "This pandemic is exploiting long existing environmental injustices all across the country. Clean air is a human right but too many communities are suffering from toxic air pollution. We must fight for clean air for all. https://t.co/JewwDkJ9U7" / Twitter
noting
New Research Links Air Pollution to Higher Coronavirus Death Rates - The New York Times

Coronavirus patients in areas that had high levels of air pollution before the pandemic are more likely to die from the infection than patients in cleaner parts of the country, according to a new nationwide study that offers the first clear link between long-term exposure to pollution and Covid-19 death rates.

In an analysis of 3,080 counties in the United States, researchers at the Harvard University T.H. Chan School of Public Health found that higher levels of the tiny, dangerous particles in air known as PM 2.5 were associated with higher death rates from the disease.

noting
COVID-19 PM2.5
Abstract:

Background: United States government scientists estimate that COVID-19 may kill between 100,000 and 240,000 Americans. The majority of the pre-existing conditions that increase the risk of death for COVID-19 are the same diseases that are affected by long-term exposure to air pollution. We investigate whether long-term average exposure to fine particulate matter (PM2.5) increases the risk of COVID-19 deaths in the United States.

Methods: Data was collected for approximately 3,000 counties in the United States (98% of the population) up to April 04, 2020. We fit zero-inflated negative binomial mixed models using county level COVID-19 deaths as the outcome and county level long-term average of PM2.5 as the exposure. We adjust by population size, hospital beds, number of individuals tested, weather, and socioeconomic and behavioral variables including, but not limited to obesity and smoking. We include a random intercept by state to account for potential correlation in counties within the same state.

Results: We found that an increase of only 1 μg/m3 in PM2.5 is associated with a 15% increase in the COVID-19 death rate, 95% confidence interval (CI) (5%, 25%). Results are statistically significant and robust to secondary and sensitivity analyses.

Conclusions: A small increase in long-term exposure to PM2.5 leads to a large increase in COVID-19 death rate, with the magnitude of increase 20 times that observed for PM2.5 and all-cause mortality. The study results underscore the importance of continuing to enforce existing air pollution regulations to protect human health both during and after the COVID-19 crisis. The data and code are publicly available.

So PM2.5 dust injures its breathers' lungs and makes them more vulnerable to he COVID-19 virus.

This is hardly surprising. We've known for a long time that atmospheric, particulate pollution leads to poor health. The elevated death due to pollution is substantial. Respiratory diseases kill many people in the US a year.

 

[DBT]

I wonder how many are infected but experience very mild symptoms which they ignore. Not only spreading the virus but skewing the statistics.

Data from Iceland (2nd highest number of tests per capita of all world countries, behind only the Faroe Islands) suggests 50% of cases may have no symptoms.

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/04/01/europe/iceland-testing-coronavirus-intl/index.html

It has now been pointed out to me that the headline of this article is misleading. It doesn't indicate that 50% of cases get no symptoms. It's only a snapshot, and many of the 50% could easily have had symptoms later.

There are reports of people experiencing mild symptoms over the course of their infection. I don't know it may linger and flare up a second time, or the first bout gives them some degree of immunity.

 

[ruby sparks]

It has now been pointed out to me that the headline of this article is misleading. It doesn't indicate that 50% of cases get no symptoms. It's only a snapshot, and many of the 50% could easily have had symptoms later.

There are reports of people experiencing mild symptoms over the course of their infection. I don't know it may linger and flare up a second time, or the first bout gives them some degree of immunity.

Yes. But according to my knowledgable source (daughter with a masters in biology) the actual proportion who only get mild symptoms during the course of the infection is unclear.

But there do seem to be some, yes.

The data she says are at least fairly reliable are the percentage of closed cases (cases that have had an outcome) that result in recovery/discharge (79% worldwide) or death (21%). But that says nothing about the severity of the symptoms.

If 1 in 5 of those (on average) who get the virus, die from it, that's not reassuring.

It will vary of course. Older people may have a higher fatality rate than younger people. Those in so-called 1st world countries may have a lower one than those not. In my case, those two things might balance out.

In my head I am trying to reconcile that (high) 21% fatality rate with the (much lower) estimate of 2.5-4% that I read of elsewhere in different statistics.

I'm hoping there is an explanation that favours the latter. Something I'm hopefully missing.

 

[Jokodo]

It has now been pointed out to me that the headline of this article is misleading. It doesn't indicate that 50% of cases get no symptoms. It's only a snapshot, and many of the 50% could easily have had symptoms later.

There are reports of people experiencing mild symptoms over the course of their infection. I don't know it may linger and flare up a second time, or the first bout gives them some degree of immunity.

Yes. But according to my knowledgable source (daughter with a masters in Biology) the actual proportion who only get mild symptoms during the course of the infection is unclear.

But there do seem to be some, yes.

The data she says are at least fairly reliable are the percentage of closed cases (cases that have had an outcome) that result in recovery/discharge (79% worldwide) or death (21%). But that says nothing about the severity of the symptoms.

If 1 in 5 of those (on average) who get the virus, die from it, that's not reassuring.

It will vary of course. Older people may have a higher fatality rate than younger people. Those in so-called 1st world countries may have a lower one than those not. In my case, those two things might balance out.

In my head I am trying to reconcile that (high) 21% fatality rate with the (much lower) estimate of 2.5-4% that I read of elsewhere in different statistics.

I'm hoping there is an explanation that favours the latter. Something I'm hopefully missing.

You are missing
a) the fact that death closes a case quicker than a verified recovery. Say it takes two weeks on average for a person to die, but 3 weeks before another can be safely declared recovered after two subsequent negative tests and a few days without symptoms, and be released back into the general population without risking they infect anyone. As long as infections are rising exponentially, the recovered and dead population have different bases. Say there were 500 infections in week 1, 1000 in week 2, 2000 in week 3, and the actual mortality is 5%. By week 5, 25 of the cases from week one, 50 from week 2, and 100 from week three will have died (175 total) but only the ones from weeks 1 and 2 will have recoverd (475+950) - in that scenario, the apparent mortality from dividing current deaths by resolved cases will be almost 11%. The actual ratio between the two values will depend on 1) how fast cases grow and b) how much longer it takes for the average recovery than for the average death, but you get the picture.

b) Another factor is that many cases go undiagnosed, and most of those that go indiagnosed are probably mild or even asymptomatic cases. Say only every other case but almost every severe case is caught, and every case that eventually results in death. With those assumptions, the apparent death rate would double yet again - because a recovered patient who was never diagnosed doesn't show up in the "recovered" figure.

So with these two factors, you already get from a 5% real case fatality rate to a 22% apparent rate as derived from (deahts/resolved cases). Add to that that due to limited testing capacities many countries preferentially test people known to be at risk, with young and healthy people often being bypassed for testing even when they show symptoms - they may be told to self- isolate just in case but won't be added to the confirmed cases tally, or to the confirmed recoveries later unless their condition deteriorates enough to require hospitalization at a later point. This means that the skew factor for the (b) part of the explanation might actually be much higher than 2.

The most reliable estimates I've seen that take this into account come up with case fatality rates between 0.5 and 1.5%, and probably closer to the lower end of that range. That's still a *lot* - influenza has about 0.1% and rarely infects more than 10-15% of the population in any one season (because there are vaccines, and because people's immune system has experience with similar strains from past years that make them partially, though not reliably, immune), while this thing, left to run its course, would probably infect 60-75% of the population before it retreats. So even under the most optimistic scenario, the final death toll would be around 20x that of a bad flu season.

All of that without a collapse of the health care system which inevitably pushes up the case fatality rate for this disease as well as producing collateral damage in the form of people dying from other preventable causes because we lack the resources to treat them during an ongoing pandemic. These two factors combine to make a 5-10-fold increase for an unchecked scenario plausible.

 

[ruby sparks]

Yes. But according to my knowledgable source (daughter with a masters in Biology) the actual proportion who only get mild symptoms during the course of the infection is unclear.

But there do seem to be some, yes.

The data she says are at least fairly reliable are the percentage of closed cases (cases that have had an outcome) that result in recovery/discharge (79% worldwide) or death (21%). But that says nothing about the severity of the symptoms.

If 1 in 5 of those (on average) who get the virus, die from it, that's not reassuring.

It will vary of course. Older people may have a higher fatality rate than younger people. Those in so-called 1st world countries may have a lower one than those not. In my case, those two things might balance out.

In my head I am trying to reconcile that (high) 21% fatality rate with the (much lower) estimate of 2.5-4% that I read of elsewhere in different statistics.

I'm hoping there is an explanation that favours the latter. Something I'm hopefully missing.

You are missing
a) the fact that death closes a case quicker than a verified recovery. Say it takes two weeks on average for a person to die, but 3 weeks before another can be safely declared recovered after two subsequent negative tests and a few days without symptoms, and be released back into the general population without risking they infect anyone. As long as infections are rising exponentially, the recovered and dead population have different bases. Say there were 500 infections in week 1, 1000 in week 2, 2000 in week 3, and the actual mortality is 5%. By week 5, 25 of the cases from week one, 50 from week 2, and 100 from week three will have died (175 total) but only the ones from weeks 1 and 2 will have recoverd (475+950) - in that scenario, the apparent mortality from dividing current deaths by resolved cases will be almost 11%. The actual ratio between the two values will depend on 1) how fast cases grow and b) how much longer it takes for the average recovery than for the average death, but you get the picture.

b) Another factor is that many cases go undiagnosed, and most of those that go indiagnosed are probably mild or even asymptomatic cases. Say only every other case but almost every severe case is caught, and every case that eventually results in death. With those assumptions, the apparent death rate would double yet again - because a recovered patient who was never diagnosed doesn't show up in the "recovered" figure.

So with these two factors, you already get from a 5% real case fatality rate to a 22% apparent rate as derived from (deahts/resolved cases). Add to that that due to limited testing capacities many countries preferentially test people known to be at risk, with young and healthy people often being bypassed for testing even when they show symptoms - they may be told to self- isolate just in case but won't be added to the confirmed cases tally, or to the confirmed recoveries later unless their condition deteriorates enough to require hospitalization at a later point. This means that the skew factor for the (b) part of the explanation might actually be much higher than 2.

The most reliable estimates I've seen that take this into account come up with case fatality rates between 0.5 and 1.5%, and probably closer to the lower end of that range. That's still a *lot* - influenza has about 0.1% and rarely infects more than 10-15% of the population in any one season (because there are vaccines, and because people's immune system has experience with similar strains from past years that make them partially, though not reliably, immune), while this thing, left to run its course, would probably infect 60-75% of the population before it retreats. So even under the most optimistic scenario, the final death toll would be around 20x that of a bad flu season.

All of that without a collapse of the health care system which inevitably pushes up the case fatality rate for this disease as well as producing collateral damage in the form of people dying from other preventable causes because we lack the resources to treat them during an ongoing pandemic. These two factors combine to make a 5-10-fold increase for an unchecked scenario plausible.

Thank you for explaining. I think I understand it a bit better now.

Would I be right (or wrong) in saying, in relation to (a), that over time the percentage of deaths would reduce (in the figures at https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/, which is where the 21% comes from), assuming the fatality rate actually is as low as, say, 0.5-2% (or whatever, but well below 21%) and all other things being hypothetically equal?

But because of (b) the figure (for deaths versus recoveries/discharges in closed cases) would always be (much) higher than the actual fatality rate?

I am also guessing that in the absence of a large, isolated sample of either human volunteers or sacrificial reprobates (murderers, politicians, estate agents, lawyers, left-handed people with excess nasal hair, etc), there are computer/virtual simulations (using grids of cells or moving dots or something) that come up with estimates based on inputting at least many of the variables.

Something like this (possibly not a good example of the method, and not specifically for coronavirus):

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=nxb1JaGuVCY&feature=emb_logo[/YOUTUBE]

(Grid is 70% populated and runs for 300 days. The infection rate is 15%, with possibility of re-infection at 50%. The virus incubates for 3 days and remains infectious for 4 days. The fatality rate is 2%.)

Or this:

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=c88GqK4CE38&feature=emb_logo[/YOUTUBE]

(as simulation 1, but with effective quarantine after 50 days)

https://towardsdatascience.com/simulating-epidemics-using-go-and-python-101557991b20

 

[Jokodo]

Yes. But according to my knowledgable source (daughter with a masters in Biology) the actual proportion who only get mild symptoms during the course of the infection is unclear.

But there do seem to be some, yes.

The data she says are at least fairly reliable are the percentage of closed cases (cases that have had an outcome) that result in recovery/discharge (79% worldwide) or death (21%). But that says nothing about the severity of the symptoms.

If 1 in 5 of those (on average) who get the virus, die from it, that's not reassuring.

It will vary of course. Older people may have a higher fatality rate than younger people. Those in so-called 1st world countries may have a lower one than those not. In my case, those two things might balance out.

In my head I am trying to reconcile that (high) 21% fatality rate with the (much lower) estimate of 2.5-4% that I read of elsewhere in different statistics.

I'm hoping there is an explanation that favours the latter. Something I'm hopefully missing.

You are missing
a) the fact that death closes a case quicker than a verified recovery. Say it takes two weeks on average for a person to die, but 3 weeks before another can be safely declared recovered after two subsequent negative tests and a few days without symptoms, and be released back into the general population without risking they infect anyone. As long as infections are rising exponentially, the recovered and dead population have different bases. Say there were 500 infections in week 1, 1000 in week 2, 2000 in week 3, and the actual mortality is 5%. By week 5, 25 of the cases from week one, 50 from week 2, and 100 from week three will have died (175 total) but only the ones from weeks 1 and 2 will have recoverd (475+950) - in that scenario, the apparent mortality from dividing current deaths by resolved cases will be almost 11%. The actual ratio between the two values will depend on 1) how fast cases grow and b) how much longer it takes for the average recovery than for the average death, but you get the picture.

b) Another factor is that many cases go undiagnosed, and most of those that go indiagnosed are probably mild or even asymptomatic cases. Say only every other case but almost every severe case is caught, and every case that eventually results in death. With those assumptions, the apparent death rate would double yet again - because a recovered patient who was never diagnosed doesn't show up in the "recovered" figure.

So with these two factors, you already get from a 5% real case fatality rate to a 22% apparent rate as derived from (deahts/resolved cases). Add to that that due to limited testing capacities many countries preferentially test people known to be at risk, with young and healthy people often being bypassed for testing even when they show symptoms - they may be told to self- isolate just in case but won't be added to the confirmed cases tally, or to the confirmed recoveries later unless their condition deteriorates enough to require hospitalization at a later point. This means that the skew factor for the (b) part of the explanation might actually be much higher than 2.

The most reliable estimates I've seen that take this into account come up with case fatality rates between 0.5 and 1.5%, and probably closer to the lower end of that range. That's still a *lot* - influenza has about 0.1% and rarely infects more than 10-15% of the population in any one season (because there are vaccines, and because people's immune system has experience with similar strains from past years that make them partially, though not reliably, immune), while this thing, left to run its course, would probably infect 60-75% of the population before it retreats. So even under the most optimistic scenario, the final death toll would be around 20x that of a bad flu season.

All of that without a collapse of the health care system which inevitably pushes up the case fatality rate for this disease as well as producing collateral damage in the form of people dying from other preventable causes because we lack the resources to treat them during an ongoing pandemic. These two factors combine to make a 5-10-fold increase for an unchecked scenario plausible.

Thank you for explaining. I think I understand it a bit better now.

Would I be right (or wrong) in saying, in relation to (a), that over time the proportion of deaths would reduce (in the figures at https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/, which is where the 21% comes from), assuming the fatality rate actually is as low as, say, 0.5-2% (or whatever, but well below 21%) and all other things being hypothetically equal?

If the growth rate drops. As long as it stays high, eg a doubling period of one week as in my illustration, the skew between the number of cases that have matured to the point where people start dying in significant numbers vs the cases where most will have recovered persists.

But because of (b) the figure (for deaths versus recoveries/discharges in closed cases) would always be (much) higher than the actual fatality rate?

Unless we radically expand testing capacity. If everyone gets tested twice a week, say, factor b disappears almost entirely, barring false negatives.

I am guessing that in the absence of a large sample of either human volunteers or sacrificial reprobates, there are computer/virtual models (using grids of cells or moving dots or something) that come up with estimates based on inputting all the variables.

We can test samples of people not suspected of being infected to get an estimate of the prevalence of light or asymptomatic infections in a population.

 

[lpetrich]

Coronavirus Data Reflects New York City's Economic Divide

The death rate from Covid-19 for black and Latino New Yorkers is roughly twice that of white New Yorkers, according to the latest city data. The death rate among Latino New Yorkers is 22.8 for every 100,000 people. Among African Americans, it is 19.8. In contrast, 10.2 of every 100,000 white New Yorkers has died from the new coronavirus.

The numbers, which were released on Wednesday, are based on 63 percent of confirmed Covid-19 deaths in New York City. They are consistent with reporting from Louisiana, Illinois, Milwaukee, and Michigan, as well as preliminary national data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which show that black people are dying in greater numbers from the virus. They are also in line with long-established health disparities in New York City, where the poor and people of color tend to die earlier and suffer worse health outcomes.

The new numbers show the virus ravaging the city’s communities of color and spreading along the edges of New York’s vast economic divide. The five ZIP codes with the highest rates of positive tests for the coronavirus — in Corona, Cambria Heights, East Elmhurst, Queens Village, and Jackson Heights — have an average per capita income of $26,708, while residents in the five with the lowest rates — in Lower Manhattan, Tribeca, Battery Park City, and the east side of Midtown — had an average income of $118,166, according to an analysis of New York City data by The Intercept.

The Intercept on Twitter: "The five New York City ZIP codes with the highest rates of positive tests for the coronavirus have an average per capita income of $26,708, while residents in the five with the lowest rates had an average income of $118,166. https://t.co/eKgqG1RXwz" / Twitter
then
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "The COVID data continues to expose the truth we‘ve long been warning about: inequality is America’s pre-existing condition.
And it is lethal. https://t.co/p6MCzEYysr" / Twitter