3 ms·

> The CDC says that the covid IFR for the 65+ cohort is 9%, not 20%. It seems you did not noticed that the data I presented was provided by the CDC. https://d

by nuerow 5y ago

> The CDC says that the covid IFR for the 65+ cohort is 9%, not 20%. It seems you did not noticed that the data I presented was provided by the CDC. https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Provisional-COVID-19-Deaths-by-Sex-and-Age/9bhg-hcku https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Provisional-COVID-19-Deaths-by-Sex... Your misconception is that you've tried to compare apples to oranges, as you tried to compare IFR estimates with death/infection ratio, which aren't the same thing at all. Nevertheless, I'm sure no one would make the mistake of interpreting a 10% IFR as being negligible, thus even with that contrarian nitpicking the point still stands.

stickfigure 5y ago
"Death / infection" is a meaningless number unless you accurately measure the number of infections. Which is what the Infection Fatality Rate attempts to estimate. Which is why the CDC posts that estimate that I linked to, which is 90,000 deaths / 1M infections, or 9%. Straight from the horse's mouth, as they say. If you're going to be this arrogant then you need to get your facts straight. Yes, 9% is nothing to sneeze at, the difference between 9% and 20% is quite material. You're displaying signs of Dunning-Kruger - by saying things like "1 death per 5 infections" I'm not wholly convinced that you understand what an IFR is. Tone it down.