2 ms·

> mortality is much less than previously suspected Mortality remains pretty much as suspected already two months ago: “Based on these available analyses, curr

by kgwgk 7y 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 7y 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 7y 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 7y ago
  CFR will be higher than IFR due to undercounting infections.
- makomk 7y 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.

by kgwgk 7y ago

zucker42 7y 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 7y 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 7y ago
CFR will be higher than IFR due to undercounting infections.
makomk 7y 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.