4 ms·
I don't see anyone here arguing that. An IFR of 0.35, let's say, would be great news at the same time as it would be significantly worse than the flu. Using b
by rootusrootus 7y ago
I don't see anyone here arguing that. An IFR of 0.35, let's say, would be great news at the same time as it would be significantly worse than the flu. Using bad numbers to come up with a 21% CFR is not responsible, and is arguably fearmongering.
- imustbeevil 7y agoBad numbers? Those are the numbers. How are you getting an IFR of 0.35? Where is the source for that? Does that source represent a projection or data coming from the results of tests being conducted? My source for the CFR represents the totality of real information the world has presented us to date. "A CFR can only be considered final when all the cases have been resolved (either died or recovered). The preliminary CFR, for example, during the course of an outbreak with a high daily increase and long resolution time would be substantially lower than the final CFR." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_fatality_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_fatality_rate
- rootusrootus 7y agoThe epidemiologists are the ones projecting IFR at ~0.35. It's not responsible to use a crudely calculated CFR when you have ample evidence that the case rate is vastly underestimating the infection rate. It's also terrible to try and use 'recovered' numbers when a lot of localities do not track and report recovered cases.