3 ms·
This is an interesting report that intrigues me. Here is 14th May report https://www.mscbs.gob.es/profesionales/saludPublica/ccayes/alertasActual/nCov-China/do
by eveningcoffee 6y ago
This is an interesting report that intrigues me.
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%.