4 ms·
It was, yes, under the early assumption that the virus spread rapidly but had a relatively low death rate. It turns out it's the opposite - it's surprisingly ea
by kalleboo 6y ago
It was, yes, under the early assumption that the virus spread rapidly but had a relatively low death rate. It turns out it's the opposite - it's surprisingly easy to stop the spread, but the death rates are higher. So countries that locked down under the plan that they were just flattening the curve still managed to nearly eradicate the virus despite that not being the original strategy.
- lbeltrame 6y ago> surprisingly easy to stop the spread, but the death rates are higher. Are they? The current IFR estimates (general, not counting age divided groups) range between 0.2 and 0.9%. That might still include a significant number of individuals, but it's not very high (of course by age groups, this changes). I still wonder whether the high death rates in some countries, including my own, were not due to the virus itself being very deadly, but because it found "niches" of vulnerable people (hospitals, nursing care homes). I don't think anyone has yet studied these dynamics in depth.
- kalleboo 6y agoEarly random sampling in Sweden indicated a IFR around 0.2%, but the more recent antibody test points to 1.1%, putting the expected final death toll up an order of magnitude
- mewpmewp2 6y agoDeath rate is smaller than it was initially thought to be afaik. Under 1%.