40 ms·

This headline doesn’t seem to match the body of the article: > "The current best estimates for the infection fatality risk are between 0.5% and 1%," says Caitl

This headline doesn’t seem to match the body of the article: > "The current best estimates for the infection fatality risk are between 0.5% and 1%," says Caitlin Rivers, an epidemiologist at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. > That's in contrast with death rates of 5% or more based on calculations that included only people who got sick enough to be diagnosed with tests that detect the presence of virus in a person's body. > And the revised estimates support an early prediction by Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and a leading member of the White House coronavirus task force. In an editorial published in late March in The New England Journal of Medicine, Fauci and colleagues wrote that the case fatality rate for COVID-19 "may be considerably less than 1%." Unless “First Thought” simply refers to people who are unfamiliar with how figures such as CFR are calculated. I’ve been seeing the 1% number repeated by scientific figures for months. Here is a Medium article from a month ago saying the same https://medium.com/@gidmk/what-is-the-infection-fatality-rate-of-covid-19-7f58f7c90410 https://medium.com/@gidmk/what-is-the-infection-fatality-rat... > From the 13 studies — including 4 models, 4 observational studies, and 5 pre-prints of one kind or another — there was an overall estimate of 0.75% infection-fatality rate, with the 95% confidence interval ranging from 0.49% to 1.01%.

nodamage 6y ago
Here is a WHO report from February saying the same thing: > Modeling is a helpful tool to try to account for missed cases, such as those that are mild cases potentially missed in current surveillance activities, and the time lag between onset and death. Using an estimated number of total infections, the Infection Fatality Ratio can be calculated. This represents the fraction of all infections (both diagnosed and undiagnosed) that result in death. Based on these available analyses, current IFR estimates range from 0.3% to 1%. Without population-based serologic studies, it is not yet possible to know what proportion of the population has been infected with COVID-19. https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situation-reports/20200219-sitrep-30-covid-19.pdf https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situati...
- acqq 6y ago
  It is a report dated 19th February! Also note that this estimate is based exclusively on the Chinese data(!) and that it practically confirms that the Chinese data were usable for the estimates even as there were doubts spread by the media and politicians. Specifically in the same report it is written (1): "Using an estimated number of total infections, the Infection Fatality Ratio can be calculated. This represents the fraction of all infections (both diagnosed and undiagnosed) that result in death. Based on these available analyses, current IFR estimates range from 0.3% to 1%." And then: "Without population-based serologic studies, it is not yet possible to know what proportion of the population has been infected with COVID-19." So even without the population-based antibody (that is what "serologic" means) data, and only using the Chinese data "as of 11 February" available to the WHO the estimate was quite good. The range depends of course also on the age structure of the population -- the countries with much more young people would have closer to the lower number, the others closer to the higher. 1) Edit: the parent post quoted the same segment later too
  - skeletor_999 6y ago
    Another consideration is whether or not the Chinese data has been reliable at later dates. The Chinese government did eject foreign journalists in March https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-51938035 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-51938035 There have been some doubts regarding the accuracy of later numbers: https://fortune.com/2020/04/24/china-coronavirus-data-real-lancet-study/ https://fortune.com/2020/04/24/china-coronavirus-data-real-l...
vannevar 6y ago
The article also fails to mention concerns about the accuracy of antibody tests, which is odd, given how much press I've seen on those problems in the past few days. The author covers the science beat for NPR, so it seems unlikely he wasn't aware of the recent antibody accuracy studies. NPR covered the story weeks ago (https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/04/15/834497497/antibody-tests-for-coronavirus-can-miss-the-mark https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/04/15/8344974...).
s1artibartfast 6y ago
Here is the link a meta analysis of IFR studies to date. possibly the one you referenced. Nearly every study to date has been in this range. Other reports have been based irresponsible pseudo journalism and alarmism. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2020/05/18/2020.05.03.20089854.full.pdf https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2020/05/18/202...
- DanBC 6y ago
  > Other reports have been based irresponsible pseudo journalism and alarmism. Other reports were using CFR, which isn't alarmism.
  - s1artibartfast 6y ago
    I think that many publications did not specify cfr or explain what it is. I often see death rate used interchangeably with the two
  - thinkingemote 6y ago
    Except the new articles that uses it caused alarm by exaggeration because the news wants our attention. The intention is not to cause alarm, but the effect was. Politically it's also easier to make changes when one highlights the dangers. Not alarmist but certainly manipulative. Fear works and by being alarmed we have saved lives.

nodamage 6y ago

Here is a WHO report from February saying the same thing: > Modeling is a helpful tool to try to account for missed cases, such as those that are mild cases potentially missed in current surveillance activities, and the time lag between onset and death. Using an estimated number of total infections, the Infection Fatality Ratio can be calculated. This represents the fraction of all infections (both diagnosed and undiagnosed) that result in death. Based on these available analyses, current IFR estimates range from 0.3% to 1%. Without population-based serologic studies, it is not yet possible to know what proportion of the population has been infected with COVID-19. https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situation-reports/20200219-sitrep-30-covid-19.pdf https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situati...

acqq 6y ago
It is a report dated 19th February! Also note that this estimate is based exclusively on the Chinese data(!) and that it practically confirms that the Chinese data were usable for the estimates even as there were doubts spread by the media and politicians. Specifically in the same report it is written (1): "Using an estimated number of total infections, the Infection Fatality Ratio can be calculated. This represents the fraction of all infections (both diagnosed and undiagnosed) that result in death. Based on these available analyses, current IFR estimates range from 0.3% to 1%." And then: "Without population-based serologic studies, it is not yet possible to know what proportion of the population has been infected with COVID-19." So even without the population-based antibody (that is what "serologic" means) data, and only using the Chinese data "as of 11 February" available to the WHO the estimate was quite good. The range depends of course also on the age structure of the population -- the countries with much more young people would have closer to the lower number, the others closer to the higher. 1) Edit: the parent post quoted the same segment later too
- skeletor_999 6y ago
  Another consideration is whether or not the Chinese data has been reliable at later dates. The Chinese government did eject foreign journalists in March https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-51938035 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-51938035 There have been some doubts regarding the accuracy of later numbers: https://fortune.com/2020/04/24/china-coronavirus-data-real-lancet-study/ https://fortune.com/2020/04/24/china-coronavirus-data-real-l...

vannevar 6y ago

The article also fails to mention concerns about the accuracy of antibody tests, which is odd, given how much press I've seen on those problems in the past few days. The author covers the science beat for NPR, so it seems unlikely he wasn't aware of the recent antibody accuracy studies. NPR covered the story weeks ago (https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/04/15/834497497/antibody-tests-for-coronavirus-can-miss-the-mark https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/04/15/8344974...).

s1artibartfast 6y ago

Here is the link a meta analysis of IFR studies to date. possibly the one you referenced. Nearly every study to date has been in this range. Other reports have been based irresponsible pseudo journalism and alarmism. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2020/05/18/2020.05.03.20089854.full.pdf https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2020/05/18/202...

DanBC 6y ago
> Other reports have been based irresponsible pseudo journalism and alarmism. Other reports were using CFR, which isn't alarmism.
- s1artibartfast 6y ago
  I think that many publications did not specify cfr or explain what it is. I often see death rate used interchangeably with the two
- thinkingemote 6y ago
  Except the new articles that uses it caused alarm by exaggeration because the news wants our attention. The intention is not to cause alarm, but the effect was. Politically it's also easier to make changes when one highlights the dangers. Not alarmist but certainly manipulative. Fear works and by being alarmed we have saved lives.