yeah, i meant nyc, not ny. if they were surveying 3,000 people and wanted to hit all all areas, counties in new york state, they'd seemingly have to get quite a few people from erie area, syracuse, north country, westchester, you name it... even if the population of nyc is close to half the state. what i was trying to say is it might just be like 500 people from nyc (or less) in order to have statistically signif numbers elsewhere. so we could really just be looking at small sample size everywhere, and dubious in how/who they took samples from.RedFromMI wrote: ↑Fri May 01, 2020 3:06 pm The 24% number is broken out for NYC. Not sure of the error bars, as I don't have the underlying data. Data was taken outside of groceries/big box stores, so there could be a selection error as well.
Even the 0.4% numbers are quite a bit higher than the flu - and given the side effects/damage this does longer term (heart, liver, kidneys, and of course lungs along with affecting clotting) a much more dangerous disease.
you can talk about cross sections, but to me the only way you can get semi-accurate numbers of a locale are to test (almost) entire communities. or just a lot of people. for a big city, that's much more difficult of course.