6 ms·

You aren't talking about the same thing though. the 9.25% death rate is a death rate of all tested people. Op is talking about X% of the population. The death r

by bosie 7y ago

You aren't talking about the same thing though. the 9.25% death rate is a death rate of all tested people. Op is talking about X% of the population. The death rate is presumably lower because people aren't getting tested to the right degree (not saying it is frightening high either way).

grecy 7y ago
ahhh, thanks. Sorry for the mistake. That being said, even countries like the US and Canada are saying they expect 60-70% of the population to get it.. so you could say the death rate will be 9% of 60%...
- bosie 7y ago
  No, you probably can't. The assumption is that the testing population is currently biased towards more serious cases (e.g. if you are in the hospital you get tested. but if you are in the hospital, you have severe symptoms => higher % will die). On the other hand you could have an entire family of 6 people under the same roof not being tested but all positive. Italy thought something similar and tested an entire village. Loads showed no symptoms and tested positive. Hence you will have X% of 60%. Question now is what the X is. But 9% seems to be the super pessimistic upper bound.
- rurban 7y ago
  The real death rate is around 1%. Which is still very high, compared to the flu. And much higher if you look at the risk groups only.
  - willturman 7y ago
    How are you deriving that 1% number when tests are highly skewed toward severe positive cases, and the virus primarily manifests with mild/no symptoms?
    - rurban 7y ago
      It's not me deriving the 1% number. These are the official numbers for the IFR. The CFR is entirely unreliable. The only good estimates are from the Diamond Princess, as all persons there have been tested. Most countries only test people with symptoms, with about a factor 5 missing. Chinese data is completely unreliable, South Korean best, behind the Diamond Princess. Now they even started talking of 0.30% and lower. * https://old.reddit.com/r/COVID19/comments/fnd2vc/covid19_fatality_is_likely_overestimated/ https://old.reddit.com/r/COVID19/comments/fnd2vc/covid19_fat... * https://old.reddit.com/r/COVID19/comments/fljcwy/early_epidemiological_assessment_of_the/ https://old.reddit.com/r/COVID19/comments/fljcwy/early_epide... Studies: https://voxeu.org/article/intergenerational-ties-and-case-fatality-rates https://voxeu.org/article/intergenerational-ties-and-case-fa... CFR's: Korea 0.97%, rest of China 0.4%, Germany 0.22%, Singapore 0.0%, Diamond Princess <1%
- Mikeb85 7y ago
  Not a chance. In Canada, know a bunch of sick people. Our health authorities aren't testing all sick people; until a few days ago only sick people who travelled. Even now only those who are seriously ill. Guarantee the amount of people with the virus is 10x or more the amount who've tested positive, which would push the death rate way down, but is also concerning in it's own way.
nutjob2 7y ago
5% of the population is still realistic in a scenario where there are no or ineffective controls and the virus infects most people relatively quickly. This would be due to hospitals being overwhelmed and victims dying who would have survived with adequate treatment. It's about 3 times the predicted infection mortality rate of around 1.4%.

by bosie 7y ago

grecy 7y ago

ahhh, thanks. Sorry for the mistake. That being said, even countries like the US and Canada are saying they expect 60-70% of the population to get it.. so you could say the death rate will be 9% of 60%...

bosie 7y ago
No, you probably can't. The assumption is that the testing population is currently biased towards more serious cases (e.g. if you are in the hospital you get tested. but if you are in the hospital, you have severe symptoms => higher % will die). On the other hand you could have an entire family of 6 people under the same roof not being tested but all positive. Italy thought something similar and tested an entire village. Loads showed no symptoms and tested positive. Hence you will have X% of 60%. Question now is what the X is. But 9% seems to be the super pessimistic upper bound.
rurban 7y ago
The real death rate is around 1%. Which is still very high, compared to the flu. And much higher if you look at the risk groups only.
- willturman 7y ago
  How are you deriving that 1% number when tests are highly skewed toward severe positive cases, and the virus primarily manifests with mild/no symptoms?
  - rurban 7y ago
    It's not me deriving the 1% number. These are the official numbers for the IFR. The CFR is entirely unreliable. The only good estimates are from the Diamond Princess, as all persons there have been tested. Most countries only test people with symptoms, with about a factor 5 missing. Chinese data is completely unreliable, South Korean best, behind the Diamond Princess. Now they even started talking of 0.30% and lower. * https://old.reddit.com/r/COVID19/comments/fnd2vc/covid19_fatality_is_likely_overestimated/ https://old.reddit.com/r/COVID19/comments/fnd2vc/covid19_fat... * https://old.reddit.com/r/COVID19/comments/fljcwy/early_epidemiological_assessment_of_the/ https://old.reddit.com/r/COVID19/comments/fljcwy/early_epide... Studies: https://voxeu.org/article/intergenerational-ties-and-case-fatality-rates https://voxeu.org/article/intergenerational-ties-and-case-fa... CFR's: Korea 0.97%, rest of China 0.4%, Germany 0.22%, Singapore 0.0%, Diamond Princess <1%
Mikeb85 7y ago
Not a chance. In Canada, know a bunch of sick people. Our health authorities aren't testing all sick people; until a few days ago only sick people who travelled. Even now only those who are seriously ill. Guarantee the amount of people with the virus is 10x or more the amount who've tested positive, which would push the death rate way down, but is also concerning in it's own way.

nutjob2 7y ago

5% of the population is still realistic in a scenario where there are no or ineffective controls and the virus infects most people relatively quickly. This would be due to hospitals being overwhelmed and victims dying who would have survived with adequate treatment. It's about 3 times the predicted infection mortality rate of around 1.4%.