3 ms·

I'm not sure of what you're claiming here. Are you trying to suggest that this study actually didn't exclude the most vulnerable segment of the population from

by jsnell 2y ago

I'm not sure of what you're claiming here. Are you trying to suggest that this study actually didn't exclude the most vulnerable segment of the population from the results? Because they very explicitly excluded ages >=70. It is clear from the abstract, it is clear from the methodology, and it is clear from the results section. This wasn't something that was forced on them by the source data, they made a deliberate choice to exclude the people most likely to die. Or are you arguing that it's reasonable to make claims about the IFR with data that exludes the most vulnerable part of the population? If you are, I'd love to hear why. > OK, you're not objective. I mean, what other motive could they have had for making that age cutoff in this paper? The fact is that Ioannidis predicted 10k dead in the US. He claimed that it would probably be less dangerous than the flu. He claimed that the CFR would be 0.1%. Not the IFR, but the CFR. All of that was horribly wrong, sometimes by multiple orders of magnitude.

timr 2y ago
> Are you trying to suggest that this study actually didn't exclude the most vulnerable segment of the population from the results? Because they very explicitly excluded ages >=70. > I mean, what other motive could they have had for making that age cutoff in this paper? Because that's the point? If you were even remotely trying to be objective, you'd know that the same authors published multiple papers estimating IFR and seroprevalence in the most vulnerable cohorts you're talking about. They cite them, and talk about them, in this paper as well. Here's one: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8934243/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8934243/ > Median IFR in community-dwelling elderly and elderly overall was 2.9% (range 1.8–9.7%) and 4.5% (range 2.5–16.7%) without accounting for seroreversion (2.2% and 4.0%, respectively, accounting for 5% monthly seroreversion). Multiple sensitivity analyses yielded similar results. IFR was higher with larger proportions of people > 85 years. The IFR of COVID-19 in community-dwelling elderly is lower than previously reported. It isn't surprising or controversial (to mathematically literate scientists, anyway) that old, sick people disproportionately died from Covid. What random HN commenters, CNN, etc., continue to deny is that the threat to younger people was far lower. The paper I cited is explicitly trying to show that, even for cohorts as old as 70, the risk was far, far lower than most people believe. You're basically arguing that because they didn't mix up old, sick people with young, healthy people the result about young people is somehow wrong.
- jsnell 2y ago
  No, I'm arguing that your claim about IFR being less than 0.26% is incorrect, for the western population distributions that are relevant to this discussion. You're the one who chose that paper excluding the elderly as the sole reference for your claims about the IFR. Why?

by jsnell 2y ago

timr 2y ago

> Are you trying to suggest that this study actually didn't exclude the most vulnerable segment of the population from the results? Because they very explicitly excluded ages >=70. > I mean, what other motive could they have had for making that age cutoff in this paper? Because that's the point? If you were even remotely trying to be objective, you'd know that the same authors published multiple papers estimating IFR and seroprevalence in the most vulnerable cohorts you're talking about. They cite them, and talk about them, in this paper as well. Here's one: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8934243/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8934243/ > Median IFR in community-dwelling elderly and elderly overall was 2.9% (range 1.8–9.7%) and 4.5% (range 2.5–16.7%) without accounting for seroreversion (2.2% and 4.0%, respectively, accounting for 5% monthly seroreversion). Multiple sensitivity analyses yielded similar results. IFR was higher with larger proportions of people > 85 years. The IFR of COVID-19 in community-dwelling elderly is lower than previously reported. It isn't surprising or controversial (to mathematically literate scientists, anyway) that old, sick people disproportionately died from Covid. What random HN commenters, CNN, etc., continue to deny is that the threat to younger people was far lower. The paper I cited is explicitly trying to show that, even for cohorts as old as 70, the risk was far, far lower than most people believe. You're basically arguing that because they didn't mix up old, sick people with young, healthy people the result about young people is somehow wrong.

jsnell 2y ago
No, I'm arguing that your claim about IFR being less than 0.26% is incorrect, for the western population distributions that are relevant to this discussion. You're the one who chose that paper excluding the elderly as the sole reference for your claims about the IFR. Why?