CDC COVID case fatality rate

[George K]

@wtg said in CDC COVID case fatality rate:

There's death. And there's sick, and really sick.....

For the same age groups:

1. How many people are hospitalized?
2. How many end up in the ICU?
3. How many have ongoing problems after being sick (whether they were hospitalized or not)?

If this disease is a protean as I think it is, you won't have the answer to #3 for a long time.

I believe the overall hospitalization rate is less than 10% of those who are symptomatic (too lazy to look it up), and only about 20% of those end up in the ICU (too lazy to look that up as well).

[A Former User]

This post is deleted!

[A Former User]

This post is deleted!

[jon-nyc]

NYC simply falsifies that.

Forget CFR - if the Infection Fatality Rate were that low then that implies 97% of NYC has been infected.

[jon-nyc]

Again if that were IFR Westchester would be over 50% infected.

It’s no where near that.

[jon-nyc]

0.25% of New York’s total population had died from the virus.

And that number is the pre-covid population. Many scores of thousands have left the city.

[Loki]

Okay, I didn’t read it wrong. The CDC is wrong. That’s the suggestion, right?

[jon-nyc]

I didn’t read it at all. It’s possible you are misinterpreting it.

But what you report in this thread is totally inconsistent with the reality on the ground in the places with severe breakouts.

[LuFins Dad]

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%

[jon-nyc]

The CDCs number implies that over 95% of NYC had it and was symptomatic.

Surely we can agree that didn’t happen.

[LuFins Dad]

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!

[jon-nyc]

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”.

[A Former User]

This post is deleted!

[Horace]

I don't think the data from 3 weeks ago support these numbers either.

[A Former User]

This post is deleted!

[A Former User]

This post is deleted!

[Mik]

All of this points out that cumulative numbers may or may not apply to your particular situation.

[Loki]

The CDC is certainly attracting attention with its new model.

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/05/22/860981956/scientists-say-new-lower-cdc-estimates-for-severity-of-covid-19-are-optimistic

So it is what the CDC is saying but I guess now we are learning the CDC is NOT to be trusted.

[A Former User]

This post is deleted!

[Doctor Phibes]

When analyzing data, my boss sometimes says 'But does it pass the giggle test?'

I rather feel that this data doesn't.