CDC revises fatality rate

[Horace]

It is not impossible that a model built from a large set of data will seem arithmetically at odds with some subset of that data, which might be an outlier. Are we concentrating on NYC because it seems to be an outlier, while ignoring other sets of data which seem to corroborate the model? The CDC model is actually under no obligation to conform to every subset of the data, it is meant to predict in general. And yes, it is conceivable that the NYC numbers imply fatality rates which overestimate the general case.

[jon-nyc]

“My model of heat dissipation in ceramic tiles was confirmed by 134 out of 135 Space Shuttle missions.”

[jon-nyc]

I get the model can’t conform to every conceivable subset of data but your biggest outbreak by far isn’t just another subset of data.

If the model is going to have any useful predictive power it can’t miss the big important cases.

[Horace]

I wonder if the CDC has a better handle on the NYC numbers than we do in this thread. You appear to have been off in your total death count by about 25%, for instance.

[jon-nyc]

No. The NYDOH counts 21k. 4700 didn’t get a pcr test because they died at home.

See the first hand story of the EMS guy that George posted in early April.

[Horace]

Ok then. For the record, I am betting that the CDC model will be a better predictor of future national numbers than the NYC numbers will be. I could certainly be wrong. I assume your bet is the opposite?

[jon-nyc]

CDC is using the higher NY number

I can’t upload the screen shot because it’s too big

[jon-nyc]

No I think they’re wrong by minimum a factor of 2.

My guess is 0.5<IFR<0.75

[Horace]

I assume the fatality rate will inevitably decrease after the first wave of infections, since those who were at the bleeding edge of risk will have already died or become immune.

[jon-nyc]

@jon-nyc said in CDC revises fatality rate:

No I think they’re wrong by minimum a factor of 2.

My guess is 0.5<IFR<0.75

CDC revised the estimate again. As a reminder, in the first post of this thread, their 'best estimate' scenario had an IFR of 0.25. Their new update, published Friday, increased it to 0.65%, smack in the middle of my range.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html

[Loki]

@jon-nyc said in CDC revises fatality rate:

@jon-nyc said in CDC revises fatality rate:

My guess is 0.5<IFR<0.75

CDC revised the estimate again. As a reminder, in the first post of this thread, their 'best estimate' scenario had an IFR of 0.4. Their new update, published Friday, increased it to 0.65%, smack in the middle of my range.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html

I’ll take credit too as the Diamond Princess example I was using very early on seems to have stood the test of time.

[jon-nyc]

You're being a bit too generous with yourself. You were touting the DP when there were only 6 or 7 fatalities and pointed out that it needed to be adjusted downward because of the age distribution on the ship. You pushed back repeatedly when I pointed out how many of the cases weren't resolved yet.

Now there are 13 deaths out of 712 cases, for an IFR of 1.8%.

[jon-nyc]

[Horace]

@jon-nyc said in CDC revises fatality rate:

@jon-nyc said in CDC revises fatality rate:

No I think they’re wrong by minimum a factor of 2.

My guess is 0.5<IFR<0.75

CDC revised the estimate again. As a reminder, in the first post of this thread, their 'best estimate' scenario had an IFR of 0.25. Their new update, published Friday, increased it to 0.65%, smack in the middle of my range.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html

Good job jon.

[Loki]

@jon-nyc said in CDC revises fatality rate:

You're being a bit too generous with yourself. You were touting the DP when there were only 6 or 7 fatalities and pointed out that it needed to be adjusted downward because of the age distribution on the ship. You pushed back repeatedly when I pointed out how many of the cases weren't resolved yet.

Now there are 13 deaths out of 712 cases, for an IFR of 1.8%.

Sorry but that is not age adjusted.

[Loki]

New NHS study of 17M tracked over 3 months

Summary
Age 80 -20 times more likely to die than in your 50’s
-100 times more likely to die than under 40

Men 59% more likely to die

Death rates:

18-39. .06%
40-49. .30%
50-59. 1%
60-69. 2.4%
70-79. 6.08%
80+. 20.61%

[Aqua Letifer]

@Loki said in CDC revises fatality rate:

New NHS study of 17M tracked over 3 months

Summary
Age 80 -20 times more likely to die than in your 50’s
-100 times more likely to die than under 40

Men 59% more likely to die

Death rates:

18-39. .06%
40-49. .30%
50-59. 1%
60-69. 2.4%
70-79. 6.08%
80+. 20.61%

Cite?

[Loki]

@Aqua-Letifer said in CDC revises fatality rate:

@Loki said in CDC revises fatality rate:

New NHS study of 17M tracked over 3 months

Summary
Age 80 -20 times more likely to die than in your 50’s
-100 times more likely to die than under 40

Men 59% more likely to die

Death rates:

18-39. .06%
40-49. .30%
50-59. 1%
60-69. 2.4%
70-79. 6.08%
80+. 20.61%

Cite?

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/08/health/coronavirus-risk-factors.html