> 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

> 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.