3 ms·
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 estim
by 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 agoI 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.