4 ms·
For south korea: (check south korea coronavirus wikipedia article for numbers to double check if you want) 80+ 24% 70+ 10% 60+ 2.6% 50+ .7% 40+ .21% 0-30 0% so
by zzzzzzzza 6y ago
For south korea: (check south korea coronavirus wikipedia article for numbers to double check if you want)
80+ 24%
70+ 10%
60+ 2.6%
50+ .7%
40+ .21%
0-30 0%
so I think your numbers are a bit low but order of magnitude correct. Also of note, S. Korea fatality rate is like 2.4%, in spite of the fact that 20 year olds were dramatically over represented in infections and none of them died - though, because of korea's older demographics, if you extrapolate to the US you get a 1.4% fatality rate (though I think it could be a bit higher because americans are fatter)
- tripletao 6y agoThis is the CFR (known deaths / known cases of people infected), not the IFR (best estimate of deaths / best estimate of infected). Most cases are mild, so many people never seek medical attention and never become a case. South Korea has done a good job tracing contacts, so they're finding a much larger share of total infections than elsewhere; but they're not claiming to find every single one, so their CFR is still an overestimate of the IFR. Estimates of the IFR come either from isolated populations that were fully tested by PCR (often ships, like the Diamond Princess) or tests for antibodies in a random sample of the population. The antibody studies are tricky when the incidence of antibodies in the population is low, since the tests have some nonzero false positive rate, but much easier in a place like NYC (with ~20% infected). ETA: But any single IFR is misleading--this disease really is no more lethal than the flu for children (which doesn't mean no one dies, just that very few do), but is >10x worse for the elderly. To ignore that promotes both needless panic in the young and dangerous complacency among the old.