3 ms·

>DP's demographics is representative of > 30% of population of most countries. However no one under 70 died from what I've read. So we can only get an upper bo

>DP's demographics is representative of > 30% of population of most countries. However no one under 70 died from what I've read. So we can only get an upper bound on CFR for people under 70.

nopinsight 7y ago
For a country with ~10% over 70 years old, and assuming infection fatality rate of ~6% among those, then IFR would already be 0.6%. So suppose that what you've read is the current statistics, it does not contradict the calculation above. People 65 and over comprise >16% of US population, which is relatively young for a developed country. Here's US age structure: https://www.indexmundi.com/united_states/age_structure.html https://www.indexmundi.com/united_states/age_structure.html
- jonhohle 7y ago
  Not everyone over 70 will be infected. edit: bad math
  - nopinsight 7y ago
    IFR = #fatalities/#infected. You might think of Attack Rate, the % of population who are infected.
    - jonhohle 7y ago
      You’re right, my mistake. Doesn’t this still assume even distribution across all ages? With current testing (at least in the US) people >=70 are more likely to have other conditions which complicate infection and therefore more likely to be tested.
- quietbritishjim 7y ago
  Everything you've said here is consistent with the parent comment. You've got a lower bound on the infection fatality rate of the whole population, given the usual distribution of ages. But you've only got an upper bound on the fatality rate of a population artificially chosen to have an age distribution that includes nobody over 70. (Actually you do have a lower bound but it's 0%.) That is relevant to anyone who's under 70 and is asking about a population who's only member is themself.
  - nopinsight 7y ago
    Yes and I'm saying there's no contradiction. :) My calculation above simply does not answer the question regarding IFR for each age group. It is based on overall statistics from Diamond Princess. The sample size from DP might be too small to answer the question, esp for younger age groups with lower IFR. We might need to look at data from South Korea and Germany, for example, to estimate those. It would require a more complicated model since testing in any country is not universal.
- kbutler 7y ago
  > For a country with ~10% over 70 years old, and assuming infection fatality rate of ~6% among those, then IFR would already be 0.6% That's assuming equal or greater rate of infection for people over 70. That is, given 1000 people, 100 would be over 70. If 10% of them get infected (10 people), but 50% of younger people get infected (500 people), your IFR could be much lower. We have some data on the age distribution of severe cases, but asymptomatic cases are virtually untested at this point, and are probably (? may be?) going to shift the distribution toward younger people (right now, we see more cases for older people, as well as more severe cases, because severe cases are more likely to be tested).
  - nopinsight 7y ago
    You're right. My hypothetical above was for a very limited context of answering its parent post only and not meant as an inference regarding the IFR for other age groups.

>DP's demographics is representative of > 30% of population of most countries. However no one under 70 died from what I've read. So we can only get an upper bound on CFR for people under 70.

nopinsight 7y ago

For a country with ~10% over 70 years old, and assuming infection fatality rate of ~6% among those, then IFR would already be 0.6%. So suppose that what you've read is the current statistics, it does not contradict the calculation above. People 65 and over comprise >16% of US population, which is relatively young for a developed country. Here's US age structure: https://www.indexmundi.com/united_states/age_structure.html https://www.indexmundi.com/united_states/age_structure.html

jonhohle 7y ago
Not everyone over 70 will be infected. edit: bad math
- nopinsight 7y ago
  IFR = #fatalities/#infected. You might think of Attack Rate, the % of population who are infected.
  - jonhohle 7y ago
    You’re right, my mistake. Doesn’t this still assume even distribution across all ages? With current testing (at least in the US) people >=70 are more likely to have other conditions which complicate infection and therefore more likely to be tested.
quietbritishjim 7y ago
Everything you've said here is consistent with the parent comment. You've got a lower bound on the infection fatality rate of the whole population, given the usual distribution of ages. But you've only got an upper bound on the fatality rate of a population artificially chosen to have an age distribution that includes nobody over 70. (Actually you do have a lower bound but it's 0%.) That is relevant to anyone who's under 70 and is asking about a population who's only member is themself.
- nopinsight 7y ago
  Yes and I'm saying there's no contradiction. :) My calculation above simply does not answer the question regarding IFR for each age group. It is based on overall statistics from Diamond Princess. The sample size from DP might be too small to answer the question, esp for younger age groups with lower IFR. We might need to look at data from South Korea and Germany, for example, to estimate those. It would require a more complicated model since testing in any country is not universal.
kbutler 7y ago
> For a country with ~10% over 70 years old, and assuming infection fatality rate of ~6% among those, then IFR would already be 0.6% That's assuming equal or greater rate of infection for people over 70. That is, given 1000 people, 100 would be over 70. If 10% of them get infected (10 people), but 50% of younger people get infected (500 people), your IFR could be much lower. We have some data on the age distribution of severe cases, but asymptomatic cases are virtually untested at this point, and are probably (? may be?) going to shift the distribution toward younger people (right now, we see more cases for older people, as well as more severe cases, because severe cases are more likely to be tested).
- nopinsight 7y ago
  You're right. My hypothetical above was for a very limited context of answering its parent post only and not meant as an inference regarding the IFR for other age groups.