
Antibody tests show what parts of NYC were hit hardest - bookofjoe
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/19/nyregion/new-york-city-antibody-test.html
======
williamstein
As if this wasn't all confusing enough, the worst hit area is named Corona:
"The hardest hit ZIP code in the city — 11368 — was the one in Corona, a
predominantly Hispanic neighborhood..."

~~~
hpkuarg
Like we needed any more proof that we live in a simulation.

~~~
sunopener
Here you go, more proof, the CoronaVirus Anthem:
[https://youtu.be/Ah0Ys50CqO8](https://youtu.be/Ah0Ys50CqO8)

------
otoburb
NYC's Covid data repository[1] has more data in case anybody wants to play
around with it. Happy that NYC committed to Open Data[2] initiatives in
previous years[3].

[1]
[https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/covid/covid-19-data.page](https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/covid/covid-19-data.page)

[2] [https://opendata.cityofnewyork.us/](https://opendata.cityofnewyork.us/)

[3] [https://datasmart.ash.harvard.edu/news/article/new-york-
city...](https://datasmart.ash.harvard.edu/news/article/new-york-city-open-
data-a-brief-history-991)

~~~
conductr
I’m getting a paywall on NYT article. But my first thought is, I bet this
correlates strongly to property values/density. I don’t know how to build that
viz but if anyone is bored with the know how please post it.

~~~
bookofjoe
[https://archive.vn/czNKW](https://archive.vn/czNKW)

~~~
conductr
Thanks this was helpful!

------
mayneack
Worth noting the limitations listed at the bottom.

> The accuracy of antibody testing varies widely. Moreover, most antibody
> tests were done for people seeking them out, which means that those who got
> tested are a self-selecting group and not a random sample.

> It also appears that New Yorkers in some neighborhoods with lower infection
> rates were more likely to seek antibody testing.

> In some wealthy and largely white ZIP codes in Manhattan, some 30 percent of
> people may have gotten an antibody test. But in Corona, for instance, where
> the positive rate was highest, less than a quarter of people got tested.

~~~
sandworm101
30% and "less than a quarter" ... that actually seems rather homogenous.
Variations in testing of 10-15% across very different neighborhoods seems
rather reasonable. Given the disparity in impact that a positive test means to
one's working life, I was expecting something more like 1% and 30%.

~~~
nerdponx
It's a bit more interesting when you consider the disparity in infection
rates. The people most likely to get it were less likely to get tested for it.

The reality is probably just that these people didn't have damn time or energy
to go to a testing center for a blood draw, or were already concerned about
spending so much time in public and didn't want to travel more than they
needed to. Being working-class in NYC is hard nowadays due to the very long
commutes (caused in turn by people fleeing excessively high rental prices).

------
nimbius
Disclosure: I suffered through two weeks of covid

The test for me was $165, and my insurance would not cover it.

My recovery was punctuated with almost daily calls from the local hospital i
tested at asking me to come back for a follow-up antibody screen for research
purposes.

This was $400. It was not covered by insurance so I skipped.

I was then contacted by my insurance company asking if I had completed the
antibody test and told it was covered, so I passed the antibody test and went
back to work. Three weeks later I wound up fighting $600 from a hospital
collections agency for covid ab lab work.

My disease advice is this: If possible, avoid being a working class American.

~~~
raducu
I think I saw a reddit post about hospital collection agencies, there was some
good advice there; I'm not an american citizen so I'm in no position to give
advice; I hope you sort it out without paying the 600$.

------
raducu
27% of people have antibodies, thus 2.4 million were infected.

23k deaths, thus a 1% mortality rate.

I guess this the final nail in the "this is just a flu" .

~~~
AuryGlenz
For a good percentage of the population it is about as deadly as the flu
though, perhaps even less. For a smaller percentage of people it’s far more
deadly than the flu.

I still think we could have gotten through this quicker if we didn’t lock down
the young and healthy, while taking extra care to keep at risk populations
safe.

~~~
tootie
Mortality rates for flu are correlated with very similar risk factors as
COVID-19 and COVID is more deadly by an order of magnitude overall. Also, it
is now becoming clearer that children are just as susceptible to adults and
can harbor substantial infections and be highly contagious even without
symptoms.

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/08/20/children-
co...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/08/20/children-coronavirus-
spread-transmission/)

~~~
DuskStar
IIRC the CDC said that COVID-19 was actually _less_ dangerous for people under
30 than the flu is. Of course, the CDC has not exactly covered itself in glory
this year, so who knows.

------
dumbfounder
It has been said that there is some likelihood that exposure to a previous
Coronavirus made some people partially resistant to Covid-19. Would that mean
that there is a chance that some people test positive for Covid-19 antibodies
due to a different strain of Coronavirus?

~~~
UncleOxidant
I don't think so. Antibodies are pretty specific. However it's possible and
there is some data to suggest that some people have T-Cell level immunity to
SARS-Cov-2 that was likely induced by exposure to an earlier coronavirus.

~~~
mr_toad
> Antibodies are pretty specific.

Not always. Famously, cowpox antibodies protect against smallpox.

------
dredmorbius
My biggest concern with this study is sampling.

My read is that test subjects were entirely self-selected, which mean strong
bias to those who suspected (or feared) exposure, had access to testing, and
(where and when necessary) could pay for same (I don't know whether or when
NYC instituted universal free test access).

That's in addition to any issues with test accuracy, procedures, or reporting
itself.

The information tells a story. It's not immediately evident just how accurate
that story is, an uncertainty which may further muddy conversations and
decisionmaking regarding the outbreak.

As any statistician worth their salt will tell you, _sample size_ is _vastly_
less relevant than _sample method_ , and a rigorous, though small (a few
hundred, perhaps 1,000 or so _randomly_ selected casess) would be highly
valuable. The alternative (at far greater cost) is near-total testing. Itally
have conducted comprehensive testing within specific small towns. Some smaller
countries and territories (Andorra, Faroe Islands, Monaco, Luxembourg) have
attained 100% test coverage. These still suggest 1-6.% CFR.

New York City's test coverage, whilst _large_ , could still remain quite
_biased_.

------
bransonf
I’m glad to see NYC drive testing like this. There’s still a lot of decisions
that need to be made in our collective efforts against further harm.

Really it comes down to 3 dimensions:

1\. Where do we direct tests

2\. Where do we allocate non-pharmaceutical interventions

3\. When ready, where do we direct a vaccine

These are all questions that we can find a signal for within the data. There
are obvious constraints, such as reagent and pharmaceutical availability and
the viability of certain policies.

I’m flabbergasted and agitated that on the federal level we haven’t come to a
consensus on testing and data. If there is anything certain to increase harm
relative to where it could be, it’s this “slow down testing” narrative.

------
quotz
Its kind of ironic that the neighborhood is called Corona...

~~~
propelol
No, it is a coincidence

~~~
Eduard
Or a data input mistake.

~~~
chimeracoder
> Or a data input mistake.

It's not - Corona Park and Elmhurst were the two hardest-hit neighborhoods
from near the very beginning.

~~~
bogomipz
No Corona Park(it's actually Flushing Meadows-Corona Park) is the name of an
actual park, named in part after Corona one of the the neighborhoods it's
located in.

------
sod
So in those 50% antibody areas in this unethical experiment we gain the
knowledge, if herd immunity is possible, I guess. Or - if it's like the flu -
USA just gradually weeds out everyone that can't handle this specific disease
while still rotating seasonal waves for everyone else.

~~~
collyw
You seem skeptical about herd immunity being a thing. This video discusses
studies showing that immunity should be long lasting.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5Z6wdu1eI0&t=270s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5Z6wdu1eI0&t=270s)

~~~
sod
> the antibodies might not last for more than three or four months

He says a few seconds into your timestamp. Thank you for trying to soothe my
thoughts. But now I'm even more concerned. Wouldn't that render a vaccine
pretty useless if it's gone after 4 months?

~~~
monadic2
Antibodies simply teach memory cells, which is what gives you the secondary
(long-lasting) immune response. See:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_B_cell](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_B_cell)

Still, it's an absolutely brutal way to handle the virus and it's accepting
deaths on the order of large wars.

~~~
collyw
Yet we handle influenza that way every year. Covid is a worse virus, but not
orders of magnitude worse.

