4 ms·

> The infection fatality rate for this virus is somewhere between 0.5% and 1% Source? Your link only has CFR (and >10%). In my country's (CFR ~15%) antibody s

by kaoD 6y ago

> The infection fatality rate for this virus is somewhere between 0.5% and 1% Source? Your link only has CFR (and >10%). In my country's (CFR ~15%) antibody study (reminder: preliminary data) the IFR is ~1.5%. Both pretty close to initial estimates. > heavily skewed to the oldest members of the population And? Either way: the huge influx of patients completely collapsed the healthcare system, which made it harder to treat everyone else.

taeric 6y ago
I don't think the argument is to not care about the older group. But it is possible more than just deaths are skewed to them. Is also possible age is just a proxy to what the real risk factor is. (My money is still on exposure to lung weakening environments.) That said, I think the natural next step for this argument is targeted testing at younger populations to see what their IFR is. With stronger (read: expensive) measures to isolate long term care facilities. Occupants, care givers, cooks, cleaners, all. (If the immunity antibody story plays out, work on ways to get antibody positive people in those positions.) And I will again point out. I'm a random internet poster. No, nobody should do something just because I think it makes sense. :)
irq11 6y ago
”Source? Your link only has CFR (and >10%)” The link I provided has IFR, and is where I got the NYC numbers I quoted. They’re in the bar graph, expressed as rates per 100k. The best reference I know of for a global, age-adjusted IFR as of early April is here (their estimate is 0.66%): https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/laninf/PIIS1473-3099(20)30243-7.pdf https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/laninf/PIIS1473-3099... However, more recent papers have come out, suggesting much lower values. For example, this paper estimates a a value of 0.08% for patients under 70, using antibody data in blood donors in Denmark: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.24.20075291v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.24.20075291v... My stated estimate is conservative. If anything we are continually reducing the number as we gather more data on prevalence. Regardless, a range of 0.5-1% is a safe bound for the highest quality estimates of IFR. The values cited by the OP (>>1.5%) are far too high, and based on severity-biased samples were gathered early in the pandemic.
- kaoD 6y ago
  > They’re in the bar graph, expressed as rates per 100k. AFAICT that's per 100k total population, not per 100k infected (which amounts to 0.2% total FR citywide, not even IFR). Or am I missing the graph you mean? > The values cited by the OP (>>1.5%) are far too high, and based on severity-biased samples were gathered early in the pandemic. I am OP. They're based on an antibody study currently ongoing in my country so... no, they're not far too high nor severity-biased. (I'm trying to find links in English, but no luck so far).

by kaoD 6y ago

taeric 6y ago

I don't think the argument is to not care about the older group. But it is possible more than just deaths are skewed to them. Is also possible age is just a proxy to what the real risk factor is. (My money is still on exposure to lung weakening environments.) That said, I think the natural next step for this argument is targeted testing at younger populations to see what their IFR is. With stronger (read: expensive) measures to isolate long term care facilities. Occupants, care givers, cooks, cleaners, all. (If the immunity antibody story plays out, work on ways to get antibody positive people in those positions.) And I will again point out. I'm a random internet poster. No, nobody should do something just because I think it makes sense. :)

irq11 6y ago

”Source? Your link only has CFR (and >10%)” The link I provided has IFR, and is where I got the NYC numbers I quoted. They’re in the bar graph, expressed as rates per 100k. The best reference I know of for a global, age-adjusted IFR as of early April is here (their estimate is 0.66%): https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/laninf/PIIS1473-3099(20)30243-7.pdf https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/laninf/PIIS1473-3099... However, more recent papers have come out, suggesting much lower values. For example, this paper estimates a a value of 0.08% for patients under 70, using antibody data in blood donors in Denmark: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.24.20075291v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.24.20075291v... My stated estimate is conservative. If anything we are continually reducing the number as we gather more data on prevalence. Regardless, a range of 0.5-1% is a safe bound for the highest quality estimates of IFR. The values cited by the OP (>>1.5%) are far too high, and based on severity-biased samples were gathered early in the pandemic.

kaoD 6y ago
> They’re in the bar graph, expressed as rates per 100k. AFAICT that's per 100k total population, not per 100k infected (which amounts to 0.2% total FR citywide, not even IFR). Or am I missing the graph you mean? > The values cited by the OP (>>1.5%) are far too high, and based on severity-biased samples were gathered early in the pandemic. I am OP. They're based on an antibody study currently ongoing in my country so... no, they're not far too high nor severity-biased. (I'm trying to find links in English, but no luck so far).