5 ms·

I'm well aware of the difference between IFR and CFR. CFR is nowhere in the range you quoted. Being consistent with incorrect studies is nothing to brag about.

by svara 7y ago

I'm well aware of the difference between IFR and CFR. CFR is nowhere in the range you quoted. Being consistent with incorrect studies is nothing to brag about. Re South Korea: You are presenting a hypothesis as fact. For lots of reasons the hypothesis appears unlikely. Time will tell, but I'm confident you'll be proven wrong again, if I see another comment by you then I'll gladly point it out. Why are you doing this? I think that's a question for yourself...

mrb 7y ago
"Being consistent with incorrect studies is nothing to brag about.” So ALL(!) the studies referenced in WHO situation reports are "incorrect"? The WHO couldn't/didn't find any other studies that were "correct"? Don't you think it is a little improbable that 4 entities (WHO + 3 teams behind the 3 studies) are all wrong? You say the CFR is nowhere in the range but that's because you, like all media, look at the so-called naïve CFR (deaths/cases) which is known to severely underestimate the true CFR in the initial rapid growth phase of an epidemic, because deaths lag cases. The naïve CFR gives accurate results only when calculated across a cohort of patients who all either recovered or died, with none left hospitalized. Epidemiologists are very aware of this bias; my post at https://blog.zorinaq.com/case-fatality-ratio-ncov/ https://blog.zorinaq.com/case-fatality-ratio-ncov/ covers this topic and presents various links including 4-5 peer-reviewed papers documenting it. This bias is why none of the proper CFR estimates employ the naïve CFR calculation. Also you need to be aware that CFR evolves over time. Initially the most severe cases are the ones that are detected first, so CFR among these initial cohorts is higher. In fact the high CFR is confirmed by observations of these cohorts. For example 11 of the first 99 patients died[1]. That's a CFR of 11% right there. And some of these patients were still hospitalized at the time of publication, some additional ones may have died since then. My CFR estimate and the 3 studies referenced by the WHO were all based on such early data when the detected cases were more severe. If we were to redo the estimate today with current data from China, we would find a lower CFR because today they can run many more lab tests on larger swath of population so they detect a larger proportion of mild cases. [1] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30211-7/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
- svara 7y ago
  The problem with what you are doing is you are taking in a lot of information, and then you come here and to Twitter to repeat the most disturbing sounding factoids without any critical thinking and without any consideration for context, all for attention. This is really offensive to me, which is why I react so strongly to it. Re CFR: If you are allowed to cherry pick a narrowly defined set of cases, you can make this value look any way you want. If that's the argument you are retreating to, you simply have nothing to say, because it is grossly misleading. Re South Korea: numbers of people tested is on a stable exponential trajectory since the very beginning, unaffected by how many church members are tested. The exponential growth factor for the number of confirmed cases has been stably decaying since the very beginning. There is simply nothing to indicate that the artifact you suggest exists, yet you take a single sentence you found online to claim South Korean growth isn't actually slowing. What the fuck dude?
  - ColanR 7y ago
    To an outside reader, you haven't presented any research and are making unfounded claims. I don't see why you're in any sense credible.
    - svara 7y ago
      Sorry, in my mind I was addressing mrb directly who surely knows the relevant data already. But you're right I should have included citations for other readers. The most detailed analysis of Chinese(!) CFR numbers I am aware of, including discussions of all the issues that mrb likes to quote to sow confusion: Riou et al. [0] Cumulative number of tests performed in South Korea: See the table at [1]; ideally plot the "Total Tested" column logarithmically to see sustained exponential growth clearly. Confirmed cases in South Korea over time [2]. Plot South Korea alone to see the continuous decay (pretty much from day 1 to right now) of the exponential growth rate clearly. [0] https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.04.20031104v1.full.pdf https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.04.20031104v... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_South_Korea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_S... [2] https://studylib.net/coronavirus-growth https://studylib.net/coronavirus-growth

by svara 7y ago

mrb 7y ago

"Being consistent with incorrect studies is nothing to brag about.” So ALL(!) the studies referenced in WHO situation reports are "incorrect"? The WHO couldn't/didn't find any other studies that were "correct"? Don't you think it is a little improbable that 4 entities (WHO + 3 teams behind the 3 studies) are all wrong? You say the CFR is nowhere in the range but that's because you, like all media, look at the so-called naïve CFR (deaths/cases) which is known to severely underestimate the true CFR in the initial rapid growth phase of an epidemic, because deaths lag cases. The naïve CFR gives accurate results only when calculated across a cohort of patients who all either recovered or died, with none left hospitalized. Epidemiologists are very aware of this bias; my post at https://blog.zorinaq.com/case-fatality-ratio-ncov/ https://blog.zorinaq.com/case-fatality-ratio-ncov/ covers this topic and presents various links including 4-5 peer-reviewed papers documenting it. This bias is why none of the proper CFR estimates employ the naïve CFR calculation. Also you need to be aware that CFR evolves over time. Initially the most severe cases are the ones that are detected first, so CFR among these initial cohorts is higher. In fact the high CFR is confirmed by observations of these cohorts. For example 11 of the first 99 patients died[1]. That's a CFR of 11% right there. And some of these patients were still hospitalized at the time of publication, some additional ones may have died since then. My CFR estimate and the 3 studies referenced by the WHO were all based on such early data when the detected cases were more severe. If we were to redo the estimate today with current data from China, we would find a lower CFR because today they can run many more lab tests on larger swath of population so they detect a larger proportion of mild cases. [1] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30211-7/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...

svara 7y ago
The problem with what you are doing is you are taking in a lot of information, and then you come here and to Twitter to repeat the most disturbing sounding factoids without any critical thinking and without any consideration for context, all for attention. This is really offensive to me, which is why I react so strongly to it. Re CFR: If you are allowed to cherry pick a narrowly defined set of cases, you can make this value look any way you want. If that's the argument you are retreating to, you simply have nothing to say, because it is grossly misleading. Re South Korea: numbers of people tested is on a stable exponential trajectory since the very beginning, unaffected by how many church members are tested. The exponential growth factor for the number of confirmed cases has been stably decaying since the very beginning. There is simply nothing to indicate that the artifact you suggest exists, yet you take a single sentence you found online to claim South Korean growth isn't actually slowing. What the fuck dude?
- ColanR 7y ago
  To an outside reader, you haven't presented any research and are making unfounded claims. I don't see why you're in any sense credible.
  - svara 7y ago
    Sorry, in my mind I was addressing mrb directly who surely knows the relevant data already. But you're right I should have included citations for other readers. The most detailed analysis of Chinese(!) CFR numbers I am aware of, including discussions of all the issues that mrb likes to quote to sow confusion: Riou et al. [0] Cumulative number of tests performed in South Korea: See the table at [1]; ideally plot the "Total Tested" column logarithmically to see sustained exponential growth clearly. Confirmed cases in South Korea over time [2]. Plot South Korea alone to see the continuous decay (pretty much from day 1 to right now) of the exponential growth rate clearly. [0] https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.04.20031104v1.full.pdf https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.04.20031104v... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_South_Korea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_S... [2] https://studylib.net/coronavirus-growth https://studylib.net/coronavirus-growth