3 ms·
Our initial policy was based on early data from China which seemed to imply 3% mortality, an R0 of 2.4 and a 5% hospitalization rate. In the past month, data fr
by goalieca 7y ago
Our initial policy was based on early data from China which seemed to imply 3% mortality, an R0 of 2.4 and a 5% hospitalization rate. In the past month, data from all sources and methods is showing this to be far less deadly but also far more contagious. Perhaps it’s time to adjust our view of the lockdown.
- usaar333 7y agoWell, R0 is probably still about 2.4 in most cities in the United States (NYC, like Wuhan, considerably higher). Source suggesting this: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.12.20062943v1.full.pdf https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.12.20062943v... I think it has been pretty obvious that IFR is not 3% for a long time. Imperial College had dropped it to 0.67% in China 3 weeks ago (https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20)30243-7/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3...)
- Jeema101 7y agoI think the view that the infection fatality rate is significantly lower than the case fatality rate has already been factored into public policy. Because even if the IFR is around 0.5% then that still works out to > 1,000,000 people dead in the US in an uncontrolled spread scenario. It would have to be another order of magnitude lower than that to be comparable to the seasonal flu.
- goalieca 7y agoUncontrolled? No, but we do know who is most vulnerable and we should be able to make more targeted and surgical measures to limit the negative impacts of social distancing.