When I said I pulled it out of my ass, I mean I examined the totality of seroprevalence surveys at the time and chose it as a sane average to work off of. So ye

When I said I pulled it out of my ass, I mean I examined the totality of seroprevalence surveys at the time and chose it as a sane average to work off of. So yes out of my ass, but in the sense that my argument doesn’t change if the IFR is .1% versus .7%. That’s what I meant. Unfortunately people like to myopically fixate on IFR as if the way we respond to .6% is fundamentally different from .3%. It’s not. You’re off by an order of magnitude because your estimate is more than twice what Ferguson’s paper estimated. Ferguson modelled worst case scenario in US as .9% IFR with 82% of pop infected for 2.2 million dead. Taking that IFR and adjusting for a HIT closer to 20-25% due to the new findings is how I got the statement that you are off by an order of magnitude. You are. Again your estimate is larger than the craziest doomer epidemiologists (Ferguson). If you respond, please make sure to address the last paragraph. And go read Ferguson if you haven’t. The paper is “wrong” but it’s a great upper bound for worst case scenario with no t cell cross reactivity and absurdly high IFR (thus why it’s a worst case). Ventilators were not a problem and the hysterical NYT video has not proven that whatsoever.