4 ms·
Well, it looks like in the end that much-criticized imperial model might be right on transmission rates but way off on the fatality rate and with that predicted
by glofish 7y ago
Well, it looks like in the end that much-criticized imperial model might be right on transmission rates but way off on the fatality rate and with that predicted deaths.
It pretty much looks like none of the epidemiological models are reasonably accurate on both, case numbers and fatally rates
- guscost 7y agoIf you're fitting a model to observations, they'll have something of an inverse (but of course non-linear) relationship. So if your virulence estimates are worse than your transmissivity estimates, or vice versa, the bad measurement is going to push the model out of whack.
- zucker42 7y agoWhich model and what fatality rates did they predict?
- cycrutchfield 7y agoHow are they off on fatality rates? Also note that the fatality rate is an input to the model, not a prediction of the model.
- rallison 7y agoIf the results from this NY study hold, the numbers are basically exactly in line with the Imperial College study. That study assumed an IFR of 0.9%, and the NY results imply an IFR right around that.