4 ms·

> An IFR of 1% seems too high. This doesn't seem to line up with data from the Diamond Princess (~1% IFR in a population biased towards elderly). The Diamond P

• ryankemper 6y ago
  That's the case fatality rate, not the infection fatality rate. As you can see in your quote, I was talking about IFR. In general - and this is a theme of the writeup BTW - we should be looking at IFR and not CFR. With IFR we can reasonably extrapolate how many deaths we'll have before new infections halt, whereas CFR is borderline impossible to use because we'd need to know how many cases we would expect per infection. At which point, why not just calculate the IFR anyway, right? See https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.05.20031773v2 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.05.20031773v... > Adjusting for delay from confirmation-to-death, we estimated case and infection fatality ratios (CFR, IFR) for COVID-19 on the Diamond Princess ship as 2.3% (0.75%-5.3%) and 1.2% (0.38-2.7%). 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. You might also want to look at https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.12.2000256 https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.E...
  • mdemare 6y ago
    That article is from early March. It’s May now, no need to estimate anymore. I agree that CFR is fairly useless. But if you test everyone, as was the case on the Diamond Princess, IFR = CFR.
    • ryankemper 6y ago
      Ah, I see. You are completely right. Thanks for pointing that out.