The normal part of "higher than normal" accounts for that. Excess are all corona (actually more than excess because lockdown drops normal deaths a lot)

Sweden is doing fine. Deaths are a lagging indicator; ICU patients has been flat for the last week: https://portal.icuregswe.org/siri/re...covid-dagligen

Interestingly, a couple antibody studies are indicating ~30% infection rate in NYC.

If you take the 17,200 extra deaths and assume an IFR of .6%, that would come out to ~2.9 million infected (as of a couple weeks ago due to time lag), which is 34% of the total population of 8.4 million.

Of course, although this is much much much lower than the 5% reported IFR, it is still 2-6X higher than the IFR predictions coming out of the Stanford/Los Angeles studies.

If you go to Worldmeter and rank the US States by death/population it seems you really can divide the country into northern east coast and central time zones versus everywhere else.

There really seems to be no way to explain it other than some interplay of weather+population density in those areas making the Ro much higher.

Edit: Louisiana seems to be the major outlier, and it seems socializing during Mardi Gras might explain what happened there.

What do we think of Barr threatening to take legal action against states to open back up again? (After Trump said it was his decision and his alone to decide and then walking it back absolving himself of responsibility.)

Also, what do we think of Fox news and Trump using the media and Twitter account to incite protests amoung their followers, putting themselves and others at risk?

Lastly, what do we think of Trump hucking Chloroquine on national television after today's new study?

https://apnews.com/a5077c7227b8eb8b0...source=Twitter

Also, today we hit a new high in reported US deaths.

Good leadership or no?

London and NYC also have a pretty big difference between them, despite the fact that, in theory, their numbers should be roughly the same. My guess is that there's a really deadly strain of this and one that isn't so deadly, so areas like Northern Italy and NYC are seeing much worse outcomes than other places which get infected with the more benign version.

What is London's "extra death" number? Also, if studies are to be believed London and NYC have the same Strain B.

Do you have evidence to support this theory?

This study has already been retracted due to the possibility that blood samples from already infected COVID-19 patients could've mistakenly been used in the study.

https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/n...akert-underlag

As of April 19, London had about 4k deaths, while the UK as a whole had 16k. According to the figure that was posted, the UK had 6,300 unreported deaths. It is unclear how many of these you can put in London, but regardless of how many it is, the maximum number of deaths in London is 10k, which is far less than NYC. And it is more likely the actual number of deaths is 6-7k, which is less than half of NYC's estimated 17,200 deaths.

So you have two cities who are having a much different experience with the same virus.

By that theory Naples had a different strain to Milan, Daegu had a way different strain to Seoul, and Los Angeles had a different strain to San Francisco.

Your assumption that they have a similar experience has no basis in reality. Different personal habits, different public transport use, different densities per sq mile
On top of that NY had 3x the January China load, which, if that was the key seeding event whose growth overtook others, means 3x the deaths right now, not to mention the noise of luck on when and where early cases hit and spread (see: the entire world's variability).

Your take is really silly.

So why has London been different than NYC?

My God. If there's one silver lining here, it's at least giving people an insight into what a clownshow of worthlessness most scientific research and most scientists are. You can't trust anything that scientists publish unless it's been replicated many times, and even then you're only sitting on maybe 70-90% odds of it being true (<30% for fields and studies that use modeling and have a strong political, environmental or self interest bias).

Density? Then why is Madrid and NYC showing similar numbers per capita?

The reason for that, like the reason between NYC and London or any other two cities that are similar in some ways but very different in others, could be any combination of 20+ variables. lol at favoring a "different strain" hypothesis when you have twice the density and 3x the early China load in NY, as well as numerous other factors. You're not thinking broadly enough.

Are they? What is Madrid’s “extra deaths”? Do we even know? It seems you are trying to compare apples to oranges a lot.

By all accounts NYC, Spain and Britain have the same predominate strain. Given this, it is more reasonable to assume Covid has spread more in the places with higher deaths/capita, for whatever reason.*

*Although in Madrid there was probably some extra deaths on top of this because their health care system was overrun.

I can cite any number of posts where you estimated the IFR of this virus to be above 1 percent based on numbers from a small sample of places, NYC being one of them.

So maybe I am not the guy who hasn't been thinking broadly enough.

This is an interview from a few days ago with an influential Swedish epidemiologist. You might not agree with his analyses and conclusions, he is for example obviously too optimistic in regards to death rates, but it is informative as to the strategy Sweden follows. I share his concerns about threats to democracy.

I just think if a virus us twice as deadly in one city than it is in another, it should be considered in the general discussion, especially when NYC has been cited over and over again by some as evidence of the virus' potential IFR.

I mean, it's science, right? Results have to be replicated.

Claiming you've discerned a (very unlikely) single cause out of 20+ causative variables based on extremely bogus assumptions (LA and NY are basically the same) and no evidence whatsoever is a world apart from showing a likely lower bound from population level death rates. Move along, the "different strain" theory for NY and London is silly.

Regardless of the reason for the disparity, the fact that it exists at all raises doubts about using NYC's numbers alone to make a determination of how dangerous this virus actually is.

Just a quick add, while the info is somewhat old, I found a story from mid-March that stated the reason there is a big difference between deaths in Lombardy (12k+) and Veneto (1,100) was because they had different strains of the virus, despite being right next to each other. I am not sure how credible that is now, but that was the theory a month ago.

Ok. My understanding is London and NY have the same strain. Although I admit I think this mainly because of the Cambridge study, which I have a lot of problems with for other reasons, so maybe that isn't true at all.

The argument is the virus is about the same amount of dangerous everywhere, and NY has a much higher infection rate, that is vastly being under-reported, which accounts for their higher death rate.

But I guess we will have to wait for more data to come in to know for sure.

No it doesn't, given that it's certain that even with an identical virus, the disparities between countries and cities will exist that look exactly like they do now due to the large variance of 20+ variables all acting together along with exponential growth and varied behavioral responses.

Of course, cucks come up with the most interesting theory and hold forth on it. It's human nature, we have an interest bias on top of a visibility bias, it's one the thing that makes scientific studies trash. But the reality is that the boring 95% explanation is the winner 95% of the time: a combination of the 20+ factors that aren't your special theory is the most probable cause.

You are aware that it is exactly those disparities that scientists take into account when determining the IFR of a virus, right?

So while you can simply ignore any deviation because it doesn't fit your narrative, actual scientists have to take these differences into account. It's just something to keep in mind when you decide to start spouting off stats about some random cruise ship in Fiji to make a larger point.