>.012% IFR for people < 35 years old Thanks for running those numbers. I wonder if you and I would disagree on the significance of the .012% IFR that you calc

>.012% IFR for people < 35 years old Thanks for running those numbers. I wonder if you and I would disagree on the significance of the .012% IFR that you calculated? I started a reply with some feedback, mentioning one of the t-cell studies showing that several times as many people may have immunity than you are showing [0], and also that somewhere between 80-95% of the dead in the < 35 age group had comorbidities [1], which improves the odds a lot if you don't have comorbidities. But even using your < 35 numbers, .012% is about 1 in 8000 odds of dying after infection, and I don't see that as statistically significant (EDIT: corrected wording). I guess the reason I say this is that I would not want 6-18 months of my social and/or economic life to be upended by something that only has a 1 in 8,000 chance of happening. I'm running on worse odd than that, being over 35. I take some precautions, and want to be considerate to those more worried about their odds, but I'd much rather not give up a large percentage of the precious time I have left in this world hiding from something that has less than a one in a thousand chance happening to me. Rather than quibble over numbers I'm curious if you interpret the same numbers differently? Do you think 1 in 8000 is statistically significant? [0] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2598-9 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2598-9 [1] https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-sex-demographics/ https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-se...