CDC COVID case fatality rate
-
In a national scale, it would mean 10% of the population has had it.
For NYC, there had been predictions in April that up to 20% of the population had had COVID. https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/494324-27m-new-yorkers-have-had-coronavirus-preliminary-data-shows.
It would be logical to assume an even higher percentage by now as the case counts have increased. Let’s say 25% or 2,125,000 cases. 22000 deaths divided by 2125000 would be 1.035%
-
That’s the problem when you try to apply a national average (and I’m not agreeing to the national average or the math that brought us to that number) to a localized outbreak. Especially for a disease that seems to have several strains of various magnitude.
I am suggesting that a 1% CFR in NYC is plausible and it’s plausible for other outbreaks to have a lower CFR. But bringing it down to.26% seems difficult to believe!
-
Right but also it’s not just any localized outbreak. It is the main outbreak, still accounting for 1/5 of cases and deaths in the US.
Seems like you can’t really say “my model is what’s really going on, that stuff in NYC? Not sure what’s up with that. Must be an aberration”.
-
This post is deleted!
-
This post is deleted!
-
This post is deleted!
-
The CDC is certainly attracting attention with its new model.
So it is what the CDC is saying but I guess now we are learning the CDC is NOT to be trusted.
-
The CDC is certainly attracting attention with its new model.
So it is what the CDC is saying but I guess now we are learning the CDC is NOT to be trusted.
This post is deleted! -
When analyzing data, my boss sometimes says 'But does it pass the giggle test?'
I rather feel that this data doesn't.
