4 ms·

I’m not qualified to properly challenge any of this, but it looks like all of these models use one estimate of the IFR (“mortality rate”). This paper is the bas

I’m not qualified to properly challenge any of this, but it looks like all of these models use one estimate of the IFR (“mortality rate”). This paper is the basis for their 0.9% number: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.09.20033357v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.09.20033357v... If that estimate is wrong, all of the numbers in the models would be wrong too. Strange that they tried a range of numbers for infectiousness but only one basically educated guess for IFR.

th0ma5 7y ago
Could be just what they had. I thought we all thought the IFR was higher, in which case the Central point of it all being urgent is perhaps understated you think?
- guscost 7y ago
  I definitely do not think that the true IFR is higher. But again, I’m not a doctor and this is not medical advice.
  - imustbeevil 7y ago
    Based on the data here: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ The current death rate of closed cases is 9%. I guess the expectation is that it falls once we develop a vaccine?
    - odkamkfn 7y ago
      Most infections never turn into "cases", which is why the IFR (Infection Fatality Rate) is a lot lower than the CFR (Case Fatality Rate). How much lower is very, very hard to say. Also note that there's no strict definition for how to calculate the CFR, so you'll see conflicting numbers even for the same area/country.