3 ms·

No professional was ever under the delusion that the IFR was >= 1%. Perhaps you meant CFR[1], which by definition does not reflect total number of infections. S

by wahern 7y ago

No professional was ever under the delusion that the IFR was >= 1%. Perhaps you meant CFR[1], which by definition does not reflect total number of infections. See, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_fatality_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_fatality_rate [1] Where 'C' means "case" or "confirmed", which in the context of medical terminology and despite some ambiguity categorically is not synonymous with infected.

guscost 7y ago
Specifically, the Imperial College model with the "two million deaths" conclusion assumed an IFR of 0.9% (adjusted for age distribution) in every scenario. Maybe not quite a delusion, but the only IFR number they modeled is starting to look pretty close to one.
- wahern 7y ago
  As best I can tell, the Imperial College report (https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/s...) got its numbers from this study: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.09.20033357v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.09.20033357v... The derived IFR is still <1% (0.66%), but I'll admit it seems unjustifiably high given the inconsistent reporting out of China. It would have been better characterized, at least qualitatively, as somewhat pessimistic, given all the assumptions.
  - guscost 7y ago
    Ah right, the 0.9% is after adjusting for the age distribution of Great Britain: > These estimates were corrected for non-uniform attack rates by age and when applied to the GB population result in an IFR of 0.9% with 4.4% of infections hospitalised (Table 1).
argonaut 7y ago
Anthony Fauci has stated multiple times in the past that he thought the "fatality rate" of Covid-19 would end up "around 1%." He didn't make a distinction between CFR and IFR, but the general public's understanding of "fatality rate" is obviously that of IFR.
- MiroF 7y ago
  Yes, and the evidence isn't suggestive of anything close to 0.1%. If it's less than 1%, it is still quite high.
- snapetom 7y ago
  > but the general public's understanding of "fatality rate" is obviously that of IFR Looking at my nextdoor group. I'm going to disagree with you on this. There's a lot of people screaming, "4.7% of people will die!" Even for a CFR, that's high.
  - argonaut 7y ago
    What you're describing is consistent with the nextdoor group thinking there is a 4.7% IFR.
snapetom 7y ago
I believe the originally, WHO, albeit based on incomplete and confusing data out of China, said it was 3.something percent. It got cleared up pretty quickly as the situation cleared up. However, the press keeps reporting the CFR as "death rate" without clarifying the definition nor the distinction between IFR. You then amplify that on social media, and it's become a shit show. "Dr. X [who's really a chiropractor] said on his YouTube video that 5% of people will die!" Even worse, this distinction is still not clear with politicians on all sides. So I agree that professionals have basically agreed the worst case is the IFR is under 1%. However, if you go to non-HN sites, you'll find that you'll have to fight the terrible messaging that's out there.

by wahern 7y ago

guscost 7y ago

Specifically, the Imperial College model with the "two million deaths" conclusion assumed an IFR of 0.9% (adjusted for age distribution) in every scenario. Maybe not quite a delusion, but the only IFR number they modeled is starting to look pretty close to one.

wahern 7y ago
As best I can tell, the Imperial College report (https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/s...) got its numbers from this study: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.09.20033357v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.09.20033357v... The derived IFR is still <1% (0.66%), but I'll admit it seems unjustifiably high given the inconsistent reporting out of China. It would have been better characterized, at least qualitatively, as somewhat pessimistic, given all the assumptions.
- guscost 7y ago
  Ah right, the 0.9% is after adjusting for the age distribution of Great Britain: > These estimates were corrected for non-uniform attack rates by age and when applied to the GB population result in an IFR of 0.9% with 4.4% of infections hospitalised (Table 1).

argonaut 7y ago

Anthony Fauci has stated multiple times in the past that he thought the "fatality rate" of Covid-19 would end up "around 1%." He didn't make a distinction between CFR and IFR, but the general public's understanding of "fatality rate" is obviously that of IFR.

MiroF 7y ago
Yes, and the evidence isn't suggestive of anything close to 0.1%. If it's less than 1%, it is still quite high.
snapetom 7y ago
> but the general public's understanding of "fatality rate" is obviously that of IFR Looking at my nextdoor group. I'm going to disagree with you on this. There's a lot of people screaming, "4.7% of people will die!" Even for a CFR, that's high.
- argonaut 7y ago
  What you're describing is consistent with the nextdoor group thinking there is a 4.7% IFR.

snapetom 7y ago

I believe the originally, WHO, albeit based on incomplete and confusing data out of China, said it was 3.something percent. It got cleared up pretty quickly as the situation cleared up. However, the press keeps reporting the CFR as "death rate" without clarifying the definition nor the distinction between IFR. You then amplify that on social media, and it's become a shit show. "Dr. X [who's really a chiropractor] said on his YouTube video that 5% of people will die!" Even worse, this distinction is still not clear with politicians on all sides. So I agree that professionals have basically agreed the worst case is the IFR is under 1%. However, if you go to non-HN sites, you'll find that you'll have to fight the terrible messaging that's out there.