2 ms·
First of all, your extra-low IFR is trying to draw a false equivalency between COVID-19 and less-fatal diseases like the flu. It is more like 0.5%-1% (if not mo
by mmastrac 6y ago
First of all, your extra-low IFR is trying to draw a false equivalency between COVID-19 and less-fatal diseases like the flu. It is more like 0.5%-1% (if not more), and the IFR once you hit 65+ is 1.5% and rises quickly.
So when a pandemic is hitting us and our collective personal responsibility is failing, our only choice is to roll over and get sick?
There are plenty of options to feed those who are going hungry due to COVID, but you should look at who is throwing up roadblocks to assistance.
- timr 6y ago"It is more like 0.5%-1% (if not more), and the IFR once you hit 65+ is 1.5% and rises quickly." The current best estimates of IFR for SARS-CoV2 are: * 0-19 years: 0.00003 (0.003%) * 20-49 years: 0.0002 (0.02%) * 50-69 years: 0.005 (0.5%) * 70+ years: 0.054. (5.4%) https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scena...
- mmastrac 6y agohttps://www.imperial.ac.uk/mrc-global-infectious-disease-analysis/covid-19/report-34-ifr/ https://www.imperial.ac.uk/mrc-global-infectious-disease-ana... "Using these age-specific estimates, we estimate the overall IFR in a typical low-income country, with a population structure skewed towards younger individuals, to be 0.23% (0.14-0.42 95% prediction interval range). In contrast, in a typical high income country, with a greater concentration of elderly individuals, we estimate the overall IFR to be 1.15% (0.78-1.79 95% prediction interval range)."
- timr 6y agoThere have been dozens of papers in this area, primarily differing (as does your link) in the assumed balance of ages in a society. The CDC citation is aggregating these studies, and (essentially) picking the middle. Cherry picking a single study from the larger pool is not a rebuttal.