4 ms·

"I don't know, an overall IFR of 0.8% is not great news" I agree, 4% IFR of people over 70 is a scary number. In my opinion, governments around the world shoul

"I don't know, an overall IFR of 0.8% is not great news" I agree, 4% IFR of people over 70 is a scary number. In my opinion, governments around the world should really focus on protecting these people. The good news is for people under 70 personal danger from the virus is close to zero. "Does the document break out IFR-S?" Don't know, sorry. Deciphering that table is really easy as the column names are almost the same as the English terms. And Google Translate does a really good job on the footnotes. But reading the whole paper I'll have to leave to someone who actually reads Spanish.

justin66 6y ago
> The good news is for people under 70 personal danger of the virus is close to zero. I feel like I'm missing some key context that would lead a person to declare that with any sense of certainty. It's on a chart and everything! But it's not in agreement with everybody else's charts, and it's early days when it comes to the epidemiology. (and at least in the US, our treatment capabilities are vast, but our testing regime is cartoonishly bad)
- myk9001 6y ago
  "But it's not in agreement with everybody else's charts, and it's early days when it comes to the epidemiology." I haven't seen any other IFR estimate that included a breakdown by age group from a government or another authoritative source. Do you have anything particular in mind? Is it a certain thing the risk for people under 70 is close to zero? Strictly speaking, no, it isn't. It's unlikely we're going to see precise IFR numbers any time soon. But countries around the world are lifting lockdowns. Where I am, they're lifting it too. So I'll have to evaluate my personal risks without full information. Why do I tend to rely on Spanish numbers? - They are one of the hardest hit countries. If they had relatively few fatalities in the age group under 70, it must be reasonable to assume other countries aren't going to have significantly more. - Don't have a link handy, but numbers published by Italian government had similar numbers of fatalities per each age group. (They didn't try to estimate IFR, though.) - I don't think Spanish govt manipulates their numbers. But -- if anything -- they have an incentive to overestimate the IFR to justify one of the strictest lockdowns and a high number of dead. I'm privileged enough, to be working from home. And staying as safe possible. I just think bad economy can ultimately take lives (not only livelihoods) of more people than COVID-19.
  - eveningcoffee 6y ago
    Here is breakdown for UK https://www.bbc.com/news/health-52403772 https://www.bbc.com/news/health-52403772, France https://www.liberation.fr/direct/element/la-repartition-par-age-des-deces-lies-au-coronavirus-ressemble-a-une-mortalite-classique_112144/ https://www.liberation.fr/direct/element/la-repartition-par-... and Belgium https://5minutes.rtl.lu/actu/frontieres/a/1496940.html https://5minutes.rtl.lu/actu/frontieres/a/1496940.html after quick googling.
    - myk9001 6y ago
      Thank you for the links. I find them useful. But one difference with the Spanish documents is they don't estimate their IFRs. And if I'm not missing anything, doing it yourself is not trivial if possible at all. It's not enough to know that 5% (an arbitrary number, just to give an example) of a country's population developed antibodies. You'd also need to know the age structure of those 5%, which may or may not match the country's age structure.
      - eveningcoffee 6y ago
        And I thank you for the link to the Spanish study. Yes, modeling prevalence is complex but once you have the total estimated infected then finding IFR becomes trivial. Calculating SMR would be much more difficult. Many (most?) countries do not produce reports in English but only in their native language. When you search in the native language then it is easier to find relevant data. Especially when you catch the right keywords they use.
- eveningcoffee 6y ago
  There is something funny going on here. Here is 14th May report https://www.mscbs.gob.es/profesionales/saludPublica/ccayes/alertasActual/nCov-China/documentos/Actualizacion_105_COVID-19.pdf https://www.mscbs.gob.es/profesionales/saludPublica/ccayes/a... that is referenced below the table. For some reason they chose to use total from the page 3, 19.155 total by age not 27.321, total by region from page 2. I presume that they do not know the details of about 8000 diseased, but it does not matter when it is the total number. Again while number of >= 70 year old matches the table on the page 3 - 16559, so do age groups <10 and 10-19 but other numbers do not. The table on the page 15 contains only 263 from the age group 50-69 but the table on the 14th May report contains 2303. The IFR for this age group would be then 0.32%. Not very big but not negligible either. Group 20-49 contains only 23 people from the 20-29 but omits 62 people from the group 30-39 and 201 people from the group 40-49. The IFR for this age group would be then 0.03%.
  - myk9001 6y ago
    Thanks for catching that. I don't really understand why they are using numbers from one table and not the other. I guess, it may be related to the dates they conducted the seroprevalence study, but it's only a wild guess. I'll try to look through the documents more carefully later, maybe there's an explanation.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

justin66 6y ago

> The good news is for people under 70 personal danger of the virus is close to zero. I feel like I'm missing some key context that would lead a person to declare that with any sense of certainty. It's on a chart and everything! But it's not in agreement with everybody else's charts, and it's early days when it comes to the epidemiology. (and at least in the US, our treatment capabilities are vast, but our testing regime is cartoonishly bad)

myk9001 6y ago
"But it's not in agreement with everybody else's charts, and it's early days when it comes to the epidemiology." I haven't seen any other IFR estimate that included a breakdown by age group from a government or another authoritative source. Do you have anything particular in mind? Is it a certain thing the risk for people under 70 is close to zero? Strictly speaking, no, it isn't. It's unlikely we're going to see precise IFR numbers any time soon. But countries around the world are lifting lockdowns. Where I am, they're lifting it too. So I'll have to evaluate my personal risks without full information. Why do I tend to rely on Spanish numbers? - They are one of the hardest hit countries. If they had relatively few fatalities in the age group under 70, it must be reasonable to assume other countries aren't going to have significantly more. - Don't have a link handy, but numbers published by Italian government had similar numbers of fatalities per each age group. (They didn't try to estimate IFR, though.) - I don't think Spanish govt manipulates their numbers. But -- if anything -- they have an incentive to overestimate the IFR to justify one of the strictest lockdowns and a high number of dead. I'm privileged enough, to be working from home. And staying as safe possible. I just think bad economy can ultimately take lives (not only livelihoods) of more people than COVID-19.
- eveningcoffee 6y ago
  Here is breakdown for UK https://www.bbc.com/news/health-52403772 https://www.bbc.com/news/health-52403772, France https://www.liberation.fr/direct/element/la-repartition-par-age-des-deces-lies-au-coronavirus-ressemble-a-une-mortalite-classique_112144/ https://www.liberation.fr/direct/element/la-repartition-par-... and Belgium https://5minutes.rtl.lu/actu/frontieres/a/1496940.html https://5minutes.rtl.lu/actu/frontieres/a/1496940.html after quick googling.
  - myk9001 6y ago
    Thank you for the links. I find them useful. But one difference with the Spanish documents is they don't estimate their IFRs. And if I'm not missing anything, doing it yourself is not trivial if possible at all. It's not enough to know that 5% (an arbitrary number, just to give an example) of a country's population developed antibodies. You'd also need to know the age structure of those 5%, which may or may not match the country's age structure.
    - eveningcoffee 6y ago
      And I thank you for the link to the Spanish study. Yes, modeling prevalence is complex but once you have the total estimated infected then finding IFR becomes trivial. Calculating SMR would be much more difficult. Many (most?) countries do not produce reports in English but only in their native language. When you search in the native language then it is easier to find relevant data. Especially when you catch the right keywords they use.
eveningcoffee 6y ago
There is something funny going on here. Here is 14th May report https://www.mscbs.gob.es/profesionales/saludPublica/ccayes/alertasActual/nCov-China/documentos/Actualizacion_105_COVID-19.pdf https://www.mscbs.gob.es/profesionales/saludPublica/ccayes/a... that is referenced below the table. For some reason they chose to use total from the page 3, 19.155 total by age not 27.321, total by region from page 2. I presume that they do not know the details of about 8000 diseased, but it does not matter when it is the total number. Again while number of >= 70 year old matches the table on the page 3 - 16559, so do age groups <10 and 10-19 but other numbers do not. The table on the page 15 contains only 263 from the age group 50-69 but the table on the 14th May report contains 2303. The IFR for this age group would be then 0.32%. Not very big but not negligible either. Group 20-49 contains only 23 people from the 20-29 but omits 62 people from the group 30-39 and 201 people from the group 40-49. The IFR for this age group would be then 0.03%.
- myk9001 6y ago
  Thanks for catching that. I don't really understand why they are using numbers from one table and not the other. I guess, it may be related to the dates they conducted the seroprevalence study, but it's only a wild guess. I'll try to look through the documents more carefully later, maybe there's an explanation.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]