3 ms·
Specifically, the Imperial College model with the "two million deaths" conclusion assumed an IFR of 0.9% (adjusted for age distribution) in every scenario. Mayb
by 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 agoAs 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 agoAh 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).