CDC COVID case fatality rate
-
wrote on 23 May 2020, 13:33 last edited by
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%
-
wrote on 23 May 2020, 13:35 last edited by jon-nyc
The CDCs number implies that over 95% of NYC had it and was symptomatic.
Surely we can agree that didn’t happen.
-
wrote on 23 May 2020, 14:00 last edited by
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!
-
wrote on 23 May 2020, 14:04 last edited by
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”.
-
wrote on 23 May 2020, 15:00 last edited byThis post is deleted!
-
wrote on 23 May 2020, 15:05 last edited by
I don't think the data from 3 weeks ago support these numbers either.
-
wrote on 23 May 2020, 15:09 last edited byThis post is deleted!
-
wrote on 23 May 2020, 15:11 last edited by A Former UserThis post is deleted!
-
wrote on 23 May 2020, 15:25 last edited by
All of this points out that cumulative numbers may or may not apply to your particular situation.
-
wrote on 23 May 2020, 15:27 last edited by Loki
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.
wrote on 23 May 2020, 15:45 last edited by A Former UserThis post is deleted! -
wrote on 23 May 2020, 16:16 last edited by
When analyzing data, my boss sometimes says 'But does it pass the giggle test?'
I rather feel that this data doesn't.