44 ms·

> Sorry, can someone spell out how this might be good news? It's good news because it strongly suggests that mortality is much less than previously suspected.

> Sorry, can someone spell out how this might be good news? It's good news because it strongly suggests that mortality is much less than previously suspected. There were numbers floating around from anywhere between 10% to 3% a few weeks back. A mortality rate < 1% is very good news because it means fewer people will die in the long run.

kgwgk 6y ago
> mortality is much less than previously suspected Mortality remains pretty much as suspected already two months ago: “Based on these available analyses, current IFR estimates10,11,12 range from 0.3% to 1%. Without population-based serologic studies, it is not yet possible to know what proportion of the population has been infected with COVID-19.” https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situation-reports/20200219-sitrep-30-covid-19.pdf https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situati...
- zucker42 6y ago
  The princess cruise ship study also gave an IFR (for China) of 0.5%, and an early epidemiological modeling study put the symptomatic CFR at 1.4% which would imply 0.7% IFR assuming it's 50% symptomatic. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0822-7 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0822-7 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.05.20031773v2 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.05.20031773v... 0.5% to 1% has been the most plausible for at least a month, and this NYC study seems to exactly line up with that.
- zaroth 6y ago
  Two weeks after that the WHO released a widely cited report claiming a fatality rate of 3.4%. “Globally, about 3.4% of reported COVID-19 cases have died. By comparison, seasonal flu generally kills far fewer than 1% of those infected.” https://www.who.int/dg/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-opening-remarks-at-the-media-briefing-on-covid-19---3-march-2020 https://www.who.int/dg/speeches/detail/who-director-general-...
  - tunesmith 6y ago
    CFR will be higher than IFR due to undercounting infections.
  - makomk 6y ago
    Yes, and then almost the entire US press spun the 3.4% figure as the real WHO-confirmed fatality rate and sub-1% numbers as a Trumpian lie as part of a stupid, cynical, partisan attempt to get Trump. There's been a lot of that. (The UK press, meanwhile, happily quoted the 1% figure - if I remember rightly, some outlets like the Guardian with both UK-facing and US-facing sides pushed both narratives to different audiences at the same time.) In reality, the WHO number was just confirmed deaths divided by confirmed cases, which was of course almost completely meaningless.
ummonk 6y ago
Mid single digit percentage mortality rates were the numbers for case fatality rate, not infection fatality rates. Infection fatality rates have consistently been around 1%.
longtimegoogler 6y ago
This comment is entirely wrong. The mortality rates are right in line with what was expected with an IFR of > .5% unlike the Stanford study which was claiming something much lower.

kgwgk 6y ago

> mortality is much less than previously suspected Mortality remains pretty much as suspected already two months ago: “Based on these available analyses, current IFR estimates10,11,12 range from 0.3% to 1%. Without population-based serologic studies, it is not yet possible to know what proportion of the population has been infected with COVID-19.” https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situation-reports/20200219-sitrep-30-covid-19.pdf https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situati...

zucker42 6y ago
The princess cruise ship study also gave an IFR (for China) of 0.5%, and an early epidemiological modeling study put the symptomatic CFR at 1.4% which would imply 0.7% IFR assuming it's 50% symptomatic. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0822-7 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0822-7 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.05.20031773v2 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.05.20031773v... 0.5% to 1% has been the most plausible for at least a month, and this NYC study seems to exactly line up with that.
zaroth 6y ago
Two weeks after that the WHO released a widely cited report claiming a fatality rate of 3.4%. “Globally, about 3.4% of reported COVID-19 cases have died. By comparison, seasonal flu generally kills far fewer than 1% of those infected.” https://www.who.int/dg/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-opening-remarks-at-the-media-briefing-on-covid-19---3-march-2020 https://www.who.int/dg/speeches/detail/who-director-general-...
- tunesmith 6y ago
  CFR will be higher than IFR due to undercounting infections.
- makomk 6y ago
  Yes, and then almost the entire US press spun the 3.4% figure as the real WHO-confirmed fatality rate and sub-1% numbers as a Trumpian lie as part of a stupid, cynical, partisan attempt to get Trump. There's been a lot of that. (The UK press, meanwhile, happily quoted the 1% figure - if I remember rightly, some outlets like the Guardian with both UK-facing and US-facing sides pushed both narratives to different audiences at the same time.) In reality, the WHO number was just confirmed deaths divided by confirmed cases, which was of course almost completely meaningless.

ummonk 6y ago

Mid single digit percentage mortality rates were the numbers for case fatality rate, not infection fatality rates. Infection fatality rates have consistently been around 1%.

longtimegoogler 6y ago

This comment is entirely wrong. The mortality rates are right in line with what was expected with an IFR of > .5% unlike the Stanford study which was claiming something much lower.