3 ms·
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 us
by 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 agoYes 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.