3 ms·

Where are you getting this 0.4% number from? Korea is testing extensively, so CFR is very close to IFR, and CFR is above 1%.

easytiger 7y ago
No it isn't. If you are asking someone where they get numbers from them write some incorrect numbers in the pursuit of whatever agenda is not a good look. As of Monday, - 274,504 people tested - 8,400 cases - 81 deaths - 0.96% CFR > so CFR is very close to IFR On what basis do you make that statement. It's clearly indefensible https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-south-korea-spread-daily-case-count-decreases-over-time-2020-3%3famp https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.businessinsider.com/coronav...
- lern_too_spel 7y ago
  > If you are asking someone where they get numbers from them write some incorrect numbers in the pursuit of whatever agenda is not a good look. > As of Monday > - 81 deaths > - 0.96% CFR I should say the same of you. Why are you posting numbers from 5 days ago? As of yesterday when I made that comment, Korea has 102 deaths and 1.16% CFR. >> so CFR is very close to IFR > On what basis do you make that statement. It's clearly indefensible On the basis of the beginning of that same sentence, which you inexplicably did not quote.
  - easytiger 7y ago
    That provides no basis? Feel free to elaborate
    - lern_too_spel 7y ago
      The more you test, the closer C will be to I.
      - easytiger 7y ago
        What? That makes no sense
arcticbull 7y ago
> Where are you getting this 0.4% number from? Korea is testing extensively, so CFR is very close to IFR, and CFR is above 1%. That's not how CFR works, and I was referring to this data [1] which showed folks under 30 with a CFR of 0%, 30-50 at 0.1% and 50-59 at 0.4%, and a total of around 0.69% at the time the data was published. [1] https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-death-rates-by-age-south-korea https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-death-rates-by-a...
- lern_too_spel 7y ago
  > and I was referring to this data [1] You were referring to data more than a week old, when the infected cases had neither time to recover nor time to die. The latest figure from yesterday is 1.16% of all cases according to JHU. > That's not how CFR works That is exactly how CFR works. If you test more people, C will be closer to I.
  - arcticbull 7y ago
    No cfr is only I at the end of the epidemic. Either way I slides the data based on those likely exposed.
    - lern_too_spel 7y ago
      No. IFR is mortality rate at the end of the epidemic. CFR exactly matches IFR if all infections are diagnosed.
      - arcticbull 7y ago
        No because you don’t know how many of them will die. In your definition you know the R not the F. Look, I’m quoting the WHO report. You’re welcome to take it up with them.
        lern_too_spel 7y ago
        R is ratio or risk. It is directly computed from C and F just as it is directly computed from I and F. I don't seen any quotes in your comment.

easytiger 7y ago

No it isn't. If you are asking someone where they get numbers from them write some incorrect numbers in the pursuit of whatever agenda is not a good look. As of Monday, - 274,504 people tested - 8,400 cases - 81 deaths - 0.96% CFR > so CFR is very close to IFR On what basis do you make that statement. It's clearly indefensible https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-south-korea-spread-daily-case-count-decreases-over-time-2020-3%3famp https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.businessinsider.com/coronav...

lern_too_spel 7y ago
> If you are asking someone where they get numbers from them write some incorrect numbers in the pursuit of whatever agenda is not a good look. > As of Monday > - 81 deaths > - 0.96% CFR I should say the same of you. Why are you posting numbers from 5 days ago? As of yesterday when I made that comment, Korea has 102 deaths and 1.16% CFR. >> so CFR is very close to IFR > On what basis do you make that statement. It's clearly indefensible On the basis of the beginning of that same sentence, which you inexplicably did not quote.
- easytiger 7y ago
  That provides no basis? Feel free to elaborate
  - lern_too_spel 7y ago
    The more you test, the closer C will be to I.
    - easytiger 7y ago
      What? That makes no sense

arcticbull 7y ago

> Where are you getting this 0.4% number from? Korea is testing extensively, so CFR is very close to IFR, and CFR is above 1%. That's not how CFR works, and I was referring to this data [1] which showed folks under 30 with a CFR of 0%, 30-50 at 0.1% and 50-59 at 0.4%, and a total of around 0.69% at the time the data was published. [1] https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-death-rates-by-age-south-korea https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-death-rates-by-a...

lern_too_spel 7y ago
> and I was referring to this data [1] You were referring to data more than a week old, when the infected cases had neither time to recover nor time to die. The latest figure from yesterday is 1.16% of all cases according to JHU. > That's not how CFR works That is exactly how CFR works. If you test more people, C will be closer to I.
- arcticbull 7y ago
  No cfr is only I at the end of the epidemic. Either way I slides the data based on those likely exposed.
  - lern_too_spel 7y ago
    No. IFR is mortality rate at the end of the epidemic. CFR exactly matches IFR if all infections are diagnosed.
    - arcticbull 7y ago
      No because you don’t know how many of them will die. In your definition you know the R not the F. Look, I’m quoting the WHO report. You’re welcome to take it up with them.
      - lern_too_spel 7y ago
        R is ratio or risk. It is directly computed from C and F just as it is directly computed from I and F. I don't seen any quotes in your comment.