3 ms·
You are unfairly mis-representing the piece. They make a number of different calculations to estimate the IFR, based on observations available at the time. They
by timr 6y ago
You are unfairly mis-representing the piece. They make a number of different calculations to estimate the IFR, based on observations available at the time. They then say the following:
> This does not make Covid-19 a nonissue. The daily reports from Italy and across the U.S. show real struggles and overwhelmed health systems. But a 20,000- or 40,000-death epidemic is a far less severe problem than one that kills two million. Given the enormous consequences of decisions around Covid-19 response, getting clear data to guide decisions now is critical. We don’t know the true infection rate in the U.S. Antibody testing of representative samples to measure disease prevalence (including the recovered) is crucial. Nearly every day a new lab gets approval for antibody testing, so population testing using this technology is now feasible.
> If we’re right about the limited scale of the epidemic, then measures focused on older populations and hospitals are sensible. Elective procedures will need to be rescheduled. Hospital resources will need to be reallocated to care for critically ill patients. Triage will need to improve. And policy makers will need to focus on reducing risks for older adults and people with underlying medical conditions.
> A universal quarantine may not be worth the costs it imposes on the economy, community and individual mental and physical health. We should undertake immediate steps to evaluate the empirical basis of the current lockdowns.
They're very clearly making point estimates to contrast with the prevalent IFR estimates of the time (~2%), which we now know were entirely wrong.
- jehb 6y agoCan you provide a citation that an IFR estimate for the early days of the pandemic at ~2%, prior to the development of current treatment protocols, was "entirely wrong"?
- davidgay 6y ago> They're very clearly making point estimates to contrast with the prevalent IFR estimates of the time (~2%), which we now know were entirely wrong. 0.01% (their estimate according to the post above) is far more "entirely wrong" than 2%. For instance, https://www.cdc.gov/library/covid19/112420_covidupdate.html https://www.cdc.gov/library/covid19/112420_covidupdate.html mentions an estimate of 0.94% for Italy (in fact I have a hard time of viewing an early estimate 2% as significantly wrong when a later one with a lot more time and data is around 1%).
- timr 6y agoAn estimate of 0.01% is closer to what we know today than the ~2% estimates of the time. Current best point estimates for IFR are somewhere between 0.1%-0.5%, depending on population age. But IFR is so tied to age that it's unhelpful to compare it from country to country. One of the reasons Italy's observed fatality rate is higher than average is because of the higher average age of is population. The CDC's current best estimates are: <20yo: .003% <50yo: .02% <70yo: .5% >70yo: 5.4% Even a small increase in the elderly population can dramatically influence the observed IFR for a given nation. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scena...
- mikeyouse 6y agoThe US’s observed CFR stands at 1.7% right now... plenty of first world countries with excellent testing are above 2%. I honestly am shocked people are still lying about all of this. https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality
- timr 6y agoCFR != IFR. A huge portion of infections in the US are never reported or detected. I can't believe people are still confusing these. Dividing fatalities by known cases is completely wrong, and is not the definition of IFR.
- mikeyouse 6y agoJust do the math though, 500k deaths (+ whatever number of deaths not reported as such) vs what proportion of cases are unreported.. 50%? 75%? Help me get to an IFR approaching 0.1%..
- Gibbon1 6y agoEstimated cases in the US is 60 million. 500,000 deaths gives an IRF of 0.8%. Which is close to what the Chinese reported a year ago.