3 ms·

e.g. > Comparing deaths onboard with expected deaths based on naive CFR estimates using China data, we estimate IFR and CFR in China to be 0.5% (95% CI: 0.2-1.

by mcbits 6y ago

e.g. > Comparing deaths onboard with expected deaths based on naive CFR estimates using China data, we estimate IFR and CFR in China to be 0.5% (95% CI: 0.2-1.2%) and 1.1% (95% CI: 0.3-2.4%) respectively. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.05.20031773v2 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.05.20031773v... 7 million is 80% of the population, which is at the high end of high estimates for the total portion of the population expected to be infected in the end. That would be more plausible if daily deaths were well into the long tail, but NYC appears to be just past the hump and hundreds/day are still dying. I would say 30x undercounting (48% infected) is highly optimistic but still plausible if you want to embrace that.

irq11 6y ago
Ok, so you’re taking one paper and assuming it is correct, and using that to dismiss more recent data. Keep in mind that not even two weeks ago, the best estimate of IFR in China was 0.66%. It keeps dropping. Also, the confidence interval on the paper you’re citing extends to 0.2%. I’m not saying that the factor is 50x, just that it’s plausible.
- mcbits 6y ago
  I don't assume that paper is correct. It's the first example I found of people estimating 0.5% since you apparently hadn't noticed that number being bandied around for the last month. It's a number I've been seeing since early March, along with 40-70% of the population ultimately being infected. I saw one guy suggesting up to 80%. If NYC is already at 80% and rising, that's pretty surprising. I would like to get an idea of what the IFR really is, not which extreme end of the range of uncertainty looks the best or worst. If it's a little less than 0.5%, great. But when some paper comes out of left field and suggests it's closer to 0.05%, sure, I'm skeptical, especially when mortality is already above that fraction of the entire population in several places.

by mcbits 6y ago

irq11 6y ago

Ok, so you’re taking one paper and assuming it is correct, and using that to dismiss more recent data. Keep in mind that not even two weeks ago, the best estimate of IFR in China was 0.66%. It keeps dropping. Also, the confidence interval on the paper you’re citing extends to 0.2%. I’m not saying that the factor is 50x, just that it’s plausible.

mcbits 6y ago
I don't assume that paper is correct. It's the first example I found of people estimating 0.5% since you apparently hadn't noticed that number being bandied around for the last month. It's a number I've been seeing since early March, along with 40-70% of the population ultimately being infected. I saw one guy suggesting up to 80%. If NYC is already at 80% and rising, that's pretty surprising. I would like to get an idea of what the IFR really is, not which extreme end of the range of uncertainty looks the best or worst. If it's a little less than 0.5%, great. But when some paper comes out of left field and suggests it's closer to 0.05%, sure, I'm skeptical, especially when mortality is already above that fraction of the entire population in several places.