CDC revises fatality rate

[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