4 ms·

> But the 1% for the diamond princess is quite high and I think that number was cited for caution. Why? The Diamond Princess has had 14 fatalities out of 712 c

> But the 1% for the diamond princess is quite high and I think that number was cited for caution. Why? The Diamond Princess has had 14 fatalities out of 712 cases which implies a fatality rate of 2%, with 8 unresolved cases still in the hospital that could push it even higher.

enitihas 6y ago
The diamond princess was a very high age group though, very far away from the general population average age.
- iso947 6y ago
  Not the staff, which are usually about half the people on a cruise liner.
  - enitihas 6y ago
    Fair enough. But is there data available separately for staff and passengers?
goalieca 6y ago
I came across this the other day on reddit. It is another cfr study with much lower rates. https://reddit.com/r/COVID19/comments/g6nmtf/_/foatvgv/?context=1 https://reddit.com/r/COVID19/comments/g6nmtf/_/foatvgv/?cont... There’s other highly tested populations with lower CFRs and then there’s IFR estimates based on serology and indirect estimates on CFR that slew much lower than 1%
- ignoramous 6y ago
  A ~1% of world's population, the entirety of which is naive [0], is still a huge toll. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine-naive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine-naive
- nodamage 6y ago
  > I came across this the other day on reddit. It is another cfr study with much lower rates. https://reddit.com/r/COVID19/comments/g6nmtf/_/foatvgv/?cont.. https://reddit.com/r/COVID19/comments/g6nmtf/_/foatvgv/?cont.... I would be careful about generalizing results from that particular study as 99.5% of the workers sampled were under the age of 70. If your sampled population does not include the most vulnerable age groups then of course your fatality rate will be lower than normal. > There’s other highly tested populations with lower CFRs and then there’s IFR estimates based on serology and indirect estimates on CFR that slew much lower than 1% I'm curious what you mean by "much lower"? Some of the antibody studies published recently have found prevalence rates that were not much higher than the false positive rates for the test, making confidence in their results somewhat dubious. In studies where the prevalence has been higher (e.g. NYC, Geneva), the IFR is trending towards 0.5-1%. This meta-analysis was published yesterday which suggests an IFR of 0.75% (CI: 0.49-1.01%): https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.03.20089854v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.03.20089854v...
raverbashing 6y ago
An even better number of IFR (or CFR?) is 0.5% from Iceland

enitihas 6y ago

The diamond princess was a very high age group though, very far away from the general population average age.

iso947 6y ago
Not the staff, which are usually about half the people on a cruise liner.
- enitihas 6y ago
  Fair enough. But is there data available separately for staff and passengers?

goalieca 6y ago

I came across this the other day on reddit. It is another cfr study with much lower rates. https://reddit.com/r/COVID19/comments/g6nmtf/_/foatvgv/?context=1 https://reddit.com/r/COVID19/comments/g6nmtf/_/foatvgv/?cont... There’s other highly tested populations with lower CFRs and then there’s IFR estimates based on serology and indirect estimates on CFR that slew much lower than 1%

ignoramous 6y ago
A ~1% of world's population, the entirety of which is naive [0], is still a huge toll. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine-naive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine-naive
nodamage 6y ago
> I came across this the other day on reddit. It is another cfr study with much lower rates. https://reddit.com/r/COVID19/comments/g6nmtf/_/foatvgv/?cont.. https://reddit.com/r/COVID19/comments/g6nmtf/_/foatvgv/?cont.... I would be careful about generalizing results from that particular study as 99.5% of the workers sampled were under the age of 70. If your sampled population does not include the most vulnerable age groups then of course your fatality rate will be lower than normal. > There’s other highly tested populations with lower CFRs and then there’s IFR estimates based on serology and indirect estimates on CFR that slew much lower than 1% I'm curious what you mean by "much lower"? Some of the antibody studies published recently have found prevalence rates that were not much higher than the false positive rates for the test, making confidence in their results somewhat dubious. In studies where the prevalence has been higher (e.g. NYC, Geneva), the IFR is trending towards 0.5-1%. This meta-analysis was published yesterday which suggests an IFR of 0.75% (CI: 0.49-1.01%): https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.03.20089854v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.03.20089854v...

raverbashing 6y ago

An even better number of IFR (or CFR?) is 0.5% from Iceland