1 In 5 New Yorkers May Have Had COVID-19, Antibody Tests Suggest (nytimes.com) 288
One of every five New York City residents tested positive for antibodies to the coronavirus, according to preliminary test results described by Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo on Thursday, suggesting the virus had spread far more widely than known. The New York Times reports: The results also provided the tantalizing prospect that many New Yorkers who never knew they had been infected -- possibly as many as 2.7 million, the governor said -- had already encountered the virus, and survived. Mr. Cuomo also suggested the death rate was far lower than believed. The reliability of some early antibody tests to hit the market has been widely questioned, with some -- made in China without Food and Drug Administration approval -- found by health officials to be deeply flawed. Researchers across New York have worked in recent weeks to develop and validate their own, with federal approval.
In New York City, about 21 percent, or one of every five residents, tested positive for coronavirus antibodies during the state survey. The rate was 16.7 percent in Long Island, 11.7 percent in Westchester and Rockland Counties, and 3.6 percent in the rest of the state. Almost 14 percent of those tested in New York were positive, according to preliminary results from the state survey, which sampled approximately 3,000 people over two days at grocery and big-box stores. The governor suggested on Thursday that, based on the survey, the death rate in New York from Covid-19 would likely be far lower than previously believed, possibly 0.5 percent of those infected. On Thursday, Mr. Cuomo did not talk about any potential for immunity among those previously infected.
In New York City, about 21 percent, or one of every five residents, tested positive for coronavirus antibodies during the state survey. The rate was 16.7 percent in Long Island, 11.7 percent in Westchester and Rockland Counties, and 3.6 percent in the rest of the state. Almost 14 percent of those tested in New York were positive, according to preliminary results from the state survey, which sampled approximately 3,000 people over two days at grocery and big-box stores. The governor suggested on Thursday that, based on the survey, the death rate in New York from Covid-19 would likely be far lower than previously believed, possibly 0.5 percent of those infected. On Thursday, Mr. Cuomo did not talk about any potential for immunity among those previously infected.
Back to work! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Back to work! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
If you're one of the other 80%
Most of them have been exposed, too. They tests suck.
Re: That's not the whole picture (Score:2)
Most people donâ(TM)t get severe symptoms.
Unless you are over the age of 45 or have a heart or lung disease then your chances of dying are the same as the flu.
It is likely far more then 20% have antibodies already. Itâ(TM)s highly contagious.
Re: (Score:2)
The fact is that if 20% have it already, many many more people than that 20% who were infected and produced anti-bodies have been exposed - and didn't get infected.>
If they don't have antibodies, that definitionally means they're still at risk from subsequent exposures to the virus. Yes, it's possible to not get sick after an initial exposure, but that doesn't mean you're immune. It just means you were lucky.
Re: (Score:3)
So 80% have no antibodies and can still get infected. It might be even more, since people who don't go out so much are less likely to have had it.
Also, as far as I know the antibody tests are still not specific enough. It might have reacted to antibodies for another coronavirus, which do not help with this one.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Probably from Trump.
Re:That's not the whole picture (Score:5, Insightful)
Some people are immune to a given virus. Viruses need specific proteins to attach themselves to a cell. Wrong protein, no entry, no infection.
Even With HIV some people are immune. They even transplanted bone marrow from a person with the immunity (wrong protein configuration for HIV to latch onto) to an infected person, and the new bone marrow cleared the infection.
Look it up, it's pretty interesting. So some people will be immune to the corona virus. No one knows who they are at this point though. So it would be pretty foolish to trust you are one of them.
Re: (Score:3)
Scientists estimate ~10% of Caucasians are naturally immune to HIV. Assuming that is also true for COVID-19 and all races, that still leaves 70% to be infected. We may have just had the tip of the iceberg to date.
Follow the facts (Score:2, Interesting)
Where did you get this naturally immune bullshit?
Well, I look at facts and make deductions from those plain facts.
Think of it more like a natural level of resistance than outright immunity if it helps you sleep at night.
But the fact is, that under the worst conditions with sustained exposure, a good number of people did not get Covid19 on a cruise ship, which is a highly enclosed environment where nothing was closed off and lots of people were visiting the same communal areas again and again, with a lot of
Re: (Score:3)
No it doesn't, actually... it's piss-poor at passing through air because it is water-borne. It can be sprayed as aerosol through coughing, sneezing, or even speaking, but the liquid droplets which can hold it are inexorably pulled down by gravity. The tiniest ones that are microscopic in size might be able to remain airborne for a few minutes at most, but the *VAST* majority of such droplets would not even remain in the air for more than about 5 or 10 seconds.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Back to work! (Score:4, Interesting)
Except that we have no idea how much immunity those antibodies confer. If they have a pretty short half life, those people may get sick again, or become asymptomatic carriers.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that we have no idea how much immunity those antibodies confer.
How many were asymptomatic? A proper survey would have included a few questions about symptoms. If most were and they catch it again, odds are pretty good that their immune systems will fight it off, just like the last time. At any rate, more people who had the disease and potentially spread it is an input into the rate of transmission calculation. It lowers it. At any rate, this all goes to stopping politicians from running around screaming with their hair on fire.
Re: (Score:2)
If you have antibodies you are not a carrier.
That's not true in some diseases (Score:3)
Re:Back to work! (Score:4, Informative)
That's just not true. You develop antibodies while fighting off the infection, and a lot of infections are persistent. That said, there are different types of antibodies, and different tests to go with them, and some types are more likely to be found while you're infected or shortly after. while other types stay in circulation for longer to sound the alarm in case you get re-infected.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that we have no idea how much immunity those antibodies confer.
I think it is more a case that we have no data on how long those antibodies stick around for.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:They were already asymptomatic (Score:5, Interesting)
Since the number of people tested as having the virus is way higher than expected, that also implies that most of those people were asymptomatic.
It's not way higher. NY had 17,000 deaths. The assumption has always been that the Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) is around 0.5-1.5% and ~10x lower the Case Fatality Rate (CFR) of 5%. 1% would represent. 1,700,000 NY cases "expected". This is 0.64% IFR so on the lower end but still within the expected range.
Re: (Score:2)
This is 0.64% IFR so on the lower end but still within the expected range.
And half that of seasonal influenza, BTW. The only notable thing here is that it appears more contagious than influenza, but once infected COVID-19 is a better risk than influenza for the afflicted.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: They were already asymptomatic (Score:3)
They do if you tag every death as flu related and then backfill those numbers even more.
Re: (Score:2)
there's herd immunity to seasonal influenza (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: They were already asymptomatic (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Wow! That is scary. But I know someone who had covid-19, died and then was reinfected twice afterwards so I know what you mean. Basically we need to just wait it out and social distance and hope a vaccine is developed.
Re: (Score:3)
The person you know was just fortunate that they didn't die, get reinfected, die again only to get reinfected after their second death. I hear that the third infection after the second death is really brutal.
Sadly, death continues to elude me.
Re: (Score:2)
So you don't work? (Score:5, Interesting)
Did you go to work last year?
As opposed to spending all of your time with family, hobbies, etc - living?
If so, you chose to trade some life for some money, aka stuff, aka the result of work. Which is a good decision - food is the result of work, it's interchangeable with money. Life is a lot better when you have food.
You probably chose to work even more, spend time away from "life", to buy a car. You could live without a car, but you chose to trade some of your life for a car.
So there's no disagreement that it makes sense to trade some of your life for other things, via work. You agree with the principle as evidenced by your actions. You ALSO didn't give all of your money to Cure.org*, which would have traded that money for lives. If saving lives is ALWAYS better than more money, you'd give all of your money to cure.org or another organization that turns money into saving lives.
So the difference between you and GP is that either you have plenty of money saved up (for now), and you're not worried about those who don't, or you and they see the current risk differently and you'd rather wait until the risk is lower. Certainly I'd there were only 1 infected person in the entire world, you wouldn't say that everyone should stay home. So you agree we need to get back to work, you just have a quantitative difference of exactly when we should do so.
You might be right that being cognizant of these choices that we all make might tend to occur more with Republicans. They have a small tendency to be less feely and more calculating, logical, recognizing that yeah you choose money over saving lives every time you buy anything other than traffic safety improvements. Traffic safety improvements would save lives, coffee doesn't. So any time you buy coffee instead of buying traffic safety, you're choosing coffee over saving lives. In general, Dems might have a harder time acknowledging that fact - it hits them in the feels. Anyway I gotta run - time for me to head into the store for some coffee.
* Cure.org is a great organization. I hope you consider giving SOME percentage of your income through them. They save lives. I was saving up, worried that if I gave more what happens if I end up broke. But you know what? If I'm going to go broke, I want to go broke by saving kids. That's the best way to go broke, if that's what's going to happen.
Re: (Score:3)
Sure we all take risks. If we'd agree to set speed limits to 5mph, fatal car crashes would be nearly eradicated. We choose to drive 70+mph so we can get places faster and have agreed that 38k+ deaths/years in the US from traffic fatalities is an acceptable consequence.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Stupid Americans. If only they were as smart as us. It is hard to believe they are the most powerful country in the world. They are so dumb, and we are so smart. Lets jerk off together and think about how great Europe is.
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine those fucking viruses plotting to unseat Trump! The US needs to declare war on COVID-19 and bomb it, so it doesn't muck with the election.
Re: (Score:2)
You Americans missed the chance to stop the outbreak by nuking China back in January. Now look where your failure has gotten you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Back to work! (Score:2)
You need around 60% for herd immunity to kick in. So they're about a third of the way there. It does suggest that they may be able to start taking cautious steps in that direction soon.. There's still enough susceptible people in fuel a second round of exponential growth.
This also gives you some feeling for how bad the "take it on the chin" approach would have been. Stories out of the hospitals show doctors and nurses pushed to their limit. If the city just let nature take it's course they could have had tw
Re: (Score:2)
You actually need about 90% infection resistance for herd immunity to kick in.
Secondly, if "the city" (whatever city you are talking about) had just let nature take its course, their would be an abundant supply of renewable energy.
Re: Back to work! (Score:2)
Herd immunity depend on R0. I have not seen estimates that high https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] link goes to other diseases with on estimated R0 and their herd immunity thresholds.
Re: Back to work! (Score:2)
The herd immunity threshold is 1 - 1/R0, so for the threshold to be 90% R0 would have to be 10.
R0 itself is not fixed, so social distancing and other public health measures can actually reduce the threshold. That's the point of shutting down non-essential businesses. It's to get R0 down.
If you can get R0 down to 1.5 you only need 33% immunity.
Re: (Score:2)
The big problem with "COVID-19 passports" as they have been proposed in other places, is that it provides an incentive for people to seek out infection so they can get the "passport" and get back to work. Hospitals are already over capacity without that.
Anonymized antibody testing makes sense for getting a picture of how many cases were missed, and in certain areas like hospitals it might make sense for planning staff allocation to put presumed immune staff in the highest risk areas, but for deciding who
Re: (Score:3)
Needs good statistical data (Score:5, Insightful)
In the recent Santa Clara study https://www.medrxiv.org/conten... [medrxiv.org], the originally described high level of positive results(50X-80X reported) was within the 95% confidence level for false positives as stated in the study itself(!). So despite the media reporting a high number of cases, that is not really what the study stated. The study was very unfortunately written in a way that could easily give that impression to anyone who did not read extremely carefully
So the question is what the statistical limits are on this study.
While its tempting to pay attention to low statistics studies, keep in mind that there is a strong "publication bias" in that only studies with results above the false positive rate are likely to be tested. Personally I think anything below 95%CL should not be considered to have any validity, and would prefer >99% before considering the results seriously.
Re: (Score:2)
We'll lose more lives from suicide than Covid-19 (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's close.
Wrong calculation (Score:2, Insightful)
Wrong.
Where you have not factored in, is that you are not including in the number of people who are exposed but do not get infected, which would be quite high with 20% (average from the summary) already being infected and a lot of time having passed.
So it's likely that over 60% have been exposed, and either had a mild reaction developing anti-bodies, or are simply not prone to catching Covid19 easily.
NYC has already reached herd immunity. You
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Citation needed. As far as I'm aware, humans can't live without ACE2 receptors, so no one can be naturally resistant. Either you have antibodies, or you are still susceptible.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And a larger number who will not, because they are simply naturally resistant.
There is precisely no evidence of this. Why do you say it?
Both in the implication that natural resistance means that antibodies will not be formed, and the assertion that you have any idea what that proportion may be.
Re: (Score:2)
The premise that some people will fight any infection off without forming antibodies I do believe is real, and seems to depend on amount of viral load versus natural immune system (from some other article posted here).
The percentage is of course, completely made up by Ken.
And if you fight off a small viral load and don't develop antibodies, it would seem to me you would still be up for a full blown infection with a larger viral load later.
Re: (Score:3)
But even if you are, say genetically highly resistant to a disease, your innate immune system is still going to react to it, and antibodies will be produced. In strudies, antibodies strongly correlate to the amount of virus being shed, which we can use as a proxy for the viral load.
Asymptomatic carriers still have antibodies.
Re: (Score:2)
Naturally-resistant, my ass.
Re: (Score:3)
This is up there with "God will protect true believers". You sir are a kook.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's just open New York as our test. Everyone go out completely normally for 2 weeks.
Now how to deal with rest of country that isn't NYC?
Re: (Score:2)
Still trying to pump that "natural immunity" false narrative? If someone was exposed, but didn't get infected, they could get exposed again and get infected.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The New York study puts the Infection Fatality rate at 0.64%.
Say 50% herd immunity * 327 million * 0.64% = 1 million dead.
1,000,000 Covid deaths > 70,000 suicides from the medicine.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Weakened immune systems means you're more likely to have severe symptoms. That doesn't mean you're less likely to be exposed. And resistant people would be "resistant" thanks to antibodies... which is what they're testing for.
Nobody had immunity this isn't the flu where this year's flu might be close enough to the antibodies you already have.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok Snarks, point out one flaw in my statistics.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Trump's heavy foot on the gas pedal of the economy meant we were going over the cliff one way or another. Unemployment was bound to rise. It's possible that the Trump economy would have led to a next great depression that would have been worse than the Covid-19 crisis, in which case it did us a favor and saved lives.
And also, if unemployment leads to suicide, and unemployment is an inevitable feature of capitalism, that points out a literal fatal flaw in capitalism and suggests the need for better social
Re:We'll lose more lives from suicide than Covid-1 (Score:4, Insightful)
You're ignoring that before the shutdown, projected COVID deaths was MUCH higher.
Also, most of the newly unemployed are furloughed rather than terminated and expect to resume their jobs, so the psychological effect is somewhat less.
Your link is a 404.
Re: (Score:3)
Unemployment isn't the cure. It is a side effect of the economic effect of having a major pandemic, which would have happened anyway when the economy collapsed due to overrun health system and every workplace having outbreaks of debilitating disease. Remember, we have data on how the 1918 Influenza Pandemic affected our economy, and the states that did better economically were the ones who put the most restrictions in the quickest to stamp out the virus.
Re: (Score:2)
How do you know that?
0.64% IFR * 29-74% Herd Immunity: 600k - 1.5m dead (Score:2)
These Numbers are pretty well in line with the initial modeling that some people are falsely claiming were doomsday scenarios.
Let's look at New York's latest numbers, 13.9% of people (who likely have a positive selection bias). We'll assume it's perfectly representative and not over-representing. We'll take the numbers at face value.
Let's use the low side of estimates for Herd immunity and use 60% of the population. 0.6 / 0.139 = 4.316x more infections * 17,671 NY Deaths = 76,277 projected deaths would ha
Re: (Score:2)
The cruise ship isn't a good example. If anything, it aligns with the idea that we should continue containment measures. Just one guy blasted the quarantine measures and later redacted his assessment. Everyone else said it was not done well or not enough was done.
On the net: "...(NIID) estimated that most of the transmission on the ship had occurred before the quarantine....Calculations indicate that an early evacuation could have reduced the case number to just 76 cases, and that the applied quarantine
Re: (Score:2)
Where you have not factored in, is that you are not including in the number of people who are exposed but do not get infected, which would be quite high with 20% (average from the summary) already being infected and a lot of time having passed where they would have exposed other people.
That's 20% who have had the infection and recovered. That's not 20% who are currently infectious.
The herd immunity figure of 30-74% takes into account those who aren't exposed and those who don't get infected when exposed. You would be double counting.
Also the Cruise ship wasn't allowed to run its course over multiple months of exposure. It wasn't a "worst possible case environment" it was just a bad environment.
Timeline for Diamond Princess:
20th January passenger embarks with COVID
5th of February all
Re: (Score:2)
Still pushing your shit hypothesis. You assumed 100% exposure and 100% testing. You assumed a 0% false negative rate. You likely assumed all testing was antibody testing, when it was likely, at that point in time, DNA testing if not just temperature-taking, the first of which would miss a recovered victim, and the latter which would miss an asymptomatic one. I'm not sure you are aware you even made these implicit assumptions.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody cares. Your numbers are obviously too high. You either fucked up a calculation or are a deliberate troll.
volunteers at grocery stores (Score:2)
These are apparently people who volunteered while visiting a grocery store - so not a random sampling. We don't know if this results in those exposed to COVID-19 being over or underrepresented.
Also we don't know what the false positive rate is for the antibody test being used, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Article says they tuned the toward false negatives not false positives.
But if they are using a test similar to the one in my state it's like 0.5% difference. So 19.5% vs 20%.
Testing what? (Score:3)
Antibodies to "coronavirus"... Is this antibodies to the actual Covid-19 virus? Or corona viruses in general, which are one of the types of virus responsible for the many annoying diseases lumped together under the category "The Common Cold".
(Not to mention that any testing that comes out of the Chinese dictatorship only passes standards for Political Reliability, anything resembling factual results is an unintended accident.)
False Positives (Score:3)
The tests I've seen values for all give massive numbers of false positives (like >90% of +ves are false) but the important part is that -ve results are pretty reliable. I wouldn't reply on a journalist to understand or allow for this sort of thing.
NY Times, pay site. (Score:4, Informative)
Is is so much to ask that you link an article we can read?
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news... [msn.com]
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/ne... [telegraph.co.uk]
https://www.chicagotribune.com... [chicagotribune.com]
https://www.nationalobserver.c... [nationalobserver.com]
https://www.livescience.com/co... [livescience.com]
Skewed results (Score:3)
The test results were very heavily skewed by the fact they selected people to test that were out shopping.
Now, who is more likely to test positive? The person who carefully shops so as to avoid shopping more than once a fortnight. Or the person who is chomping at the bit to get out and pops out every day to buy a newspaper and 1 pint of milk? And then pops out for exercise, and finds other excuses to leave.
They just tested the people who can't stay home.
So to sum up, they tested people more likely to have the disease with a test of unknown reliability for an anti-body for which no-one knows how long it lasts.
Re: (Score:2)
Libertarians don't necessarily have a political ideology that distrusts the press or government. Just beacuse it's popular in some conservative circles to worry about the lamestream media doesn't mean there's any ideology behind it. The libertarian ideals are for a improved economic and social freedoms, and a smaller government is an offshoot from that, and I never heard of any Libertarian platform plank that said anything about the press beyond bemoaning that the press never notices anything beyond the tw
How do you avoid it? (Score:2)
Put another way, libertarians do not favor government, which is to say they oppose it ( I certainly wouldn't argue that they're neutral on the subject).
When you already oppose and/or dislike something it's hard to imagine that creating much in the way of trust....
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
As much government as needed but no more, which is not the same as no government. They're opposed to too much regulation, but not necessarily in favor of no regulation at all. Most seem to believe the purpose of government is to protect eveyrone's rights, which is something that can't be done if there is zero government. Thus you can have a military, you can have police, you can have regulations to prevent the erosion of liberties (no dumping poison into the rivers or charging excessive amounts of interes
Re:How do you avoid it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh so they're for a government that maximizes freedom while protecting its citizens from bad actors with the least imposition.
In other words exactly the same Liberals and Conservatives but with a superiority complex that everyone else hates freedom and liberty.
Everybody wants a government that taxes them to the least possible amount and imposes their freedom to the least amount... while also protecting them from others who would take advantage of them. That's true of communists and fascists alike. It's the universal goal of citizens electing governments.
"I want the maximum freedom while keeping me from being unduly harmed."
Re: (Score:3)
Well, the original simple view I saw (which is treated as an advanced concept because it's not just left vs right), was that party A might be for economic freedom but for less personal freedom (no birth control, no churches of the wrong sort), while party B was for personal freedoms for less economic freedoms (more regulations, more tax on higher incomes, etc). Then for libertarians the claim is that they're for both more economic free and personal freedom - peace, love, drugs, free markets, low regulation
Re: How do you avoid it? (Score:4, Insightful)
In other words exactly the same Liberals and Conservatives but with a superiority complex that everyone else hates freedom and liberty.
No. Take tobacco and marijuana for example. A libertarian says it should be ok for you to sit in your back yard and smoke both of them. A conservative says smoke the tobacco, but don't smoke the grass, because it makes you a menace to society. A liberal says smoke the weed, but don't smoke the tobacco because it makes you a menace to society.
How do you avoid the structures you've built (Score:2)
Socialism tries to solve this by guaranteeing everyone a stable life (food, shelter, healthcare, etc) which the theory goes reduces the amount of power held by the wealthy (since there's a floor to how far you can fall in society).
As far as I know Libertarianism has no floor though. Meaning the wealthy literally have power of life and death (e.g. they can black ball you, keep you from work, keep you from medicine y
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Socialism tries to solve this by guaranteeing everyone a stable life (food, shelter, healthcare, etc) which the theory goes reduces the amount of power held by the wealthy (since there's a floor to how far you can fall in society).
So are you enjoying our 60-day free trial of what a socialist society would be like? No more rights, savings gone worthless, travel banned, surveillance everywhere, rationed staples with whole empty aisles in your favorite store, governments printing money Zimbabwe style to keep the ghost of an economy working. When you do go back to work, you will be paid in million-dollar bills. Let's see how many loaves of bread one of them will buy.
Re:Sad (Score:5, Insightful)
That right there is why I gave up on libertarianism as a movement worthy of respect: the incessant sly innuendo that being a contrarian makes you smart or wise is nothing more than self-indulgent stupidity.
As for the 1 in 5 number, that is probably ballpark correct. .20 infected portion X .01 mortality (order or magnitude estimate) = 16800 deaths.
8400000 NYC residents X
Actual death toll recently reported for NYC = 15411
And, no, I am not assuming that 1% mortality is correct. But it seems to be good enough for a "back of the envelope" calculation. And actual deaths tend to lag the infected by a week or two when infection increases are still high.
Re: (Score:2)
And actual deaths tend to lag the infected by a week or two when infection increases are still high.
In this case Antibodies also lag about 10 days so I think those two probably cancel each other out.
Re:Sad (Score:4, Interesting)
Or that medical care in NYC was inadequate and increased the mortality of otherwise survivable cases. Invasive ventilators come to mind.
Re: Sad (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
was always skeptical of narratives of the press and government, especially when the matched.
So when everyone else agrees, but you don't, they are conspiring against you? Sounds more like paranoia.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What happened to the notion of acceptable risk?
in the late 80s early 90's when the AIDS epidemic was ratcheting up, were people saying "DONT HAVE SEX UNTIL THERE IS A CURE?" No. it was "wrap it up". As in, take sensible precautions and live your life.
If we want to live in a functional and prosperous society it simply won't work if we're cowed into staying home 100% of the time, forever. Especially if that submission is caused by a virus that for all intents and purposes is pretty mild compared to some of
Re: (Score:3)
If we want to live in a functional and prosperous society it simply won't work if we're cowed into staying home 100% of the time, forever
Straw man. NOBODY is saying we'll be at home 100% of the time forever. Everybody is saying some number of more weeks (for now).
Re: (Score:2)
Fuck me. I got wooshed. well played.
Re: (Score:3)
Please take your hysterical bullshit somewhere else.