The thing is that those numbers are misleading. They only include known tested positives AND the death rate includes some untested and some who had comorbidities that may have actually killed them, skewing it higher. So we have to include those who have it and haven’t been tested (hopefully to be found in other studies- they already imply its 30-50x higher).
Apples to oranges. The numbers I cited are good for comparative purposes, which is how I'm using them. That's perfectly valid. Give sick people medicine!
We can't speculate with numbers that haven't been tested. They're talking about doing random Nationwide antibody testing; we'll see if that produces anything usable for the purpose you're talking about. So far we don't have anything like that. One nurse in Chicago, a small area in LA and NYC, where else? These may prove to be the case in dense cities, that'd be great. It will probably prove to have no bearing on the vast portion of our Country that has 0-10 cases per County. Trying to turn the data they come up with into useful regions with boundaries guiding us into useful decisions will be an art rather than a science.
I seriously doubt it will ever tell us anything more useful than what was obvious before April 1: open up all Counties on April 1 that have 0-10 infected people, along with everyone recovered, virus-free and immune. Gather data about the second wave, and use that to guide opening our suburbs, 11 - X cases per County. That we didn't do this is irresponsible. We could've focused excess personnel and equipment on key areas, and had all our suburbs open by now. Armed with all that data we could be opening smaller cities very soon, in completely responsible fashion. Our largest cities will be the hardest, and this is where the antibody testing has been done so far.
The thing is that those numbers are misleading. They only include known tested positives AND the death rate includes some untested and some who had comorbidities that may have actually killed them, skewing it higher. So we have to include those who have it and haven’t been tested (hopefully to be found in other studies- they already imply its 30-50x higher).
Apples to oranges. The numbers I cited are good for comparative purposes, which is how I'm using them. That's perfectly valid. Give sick people medicine!
We can't speculate with numbers that haven't been tested. They're talking about doing random Nationwide antibody testing; we'll see if that produces anything usable for the purpose you're talking about. So far we don't have anything like that. One nurse in Chicago, a small area in LA and NYC, where else? These may prove to be the case in dense cities, that'd be great. It will probably prove to have no bearing on the vast portion of our Country that has 0-10 cases per County. Trying to turn the data they come up with into useful regions with boundaries guiding us into useful decisions will be an art rather than a science.
I seriously doubt it will ever tell us anything more useful than what was obvious before April 1: open up all Counties on April 1 that have 0-10 infected people, along with everyone recovered, virus-free and immune. Gather data about the second wave, and use that to guide opening our suburbs, 11 - X cases per County. That we didn't do this is irresponsible. We could've focused excess personnel and equipment on key areas, and had all our suburbs open by now. Armed with all that data we could be opening smaller cities very soon, in completely responsible fashion. Our largest cities will be the hardest, and this is where the antibody testing has been done so far.