CDC revises fatality rate
-
@Horace said in CDC revises fatality rate:
It doesn't seem drastically different from their estimate for CFR in the elderly. Of that 21k, what is the age breakdown?
Even if 100% of cases (not deaths) were over 65, it would still be double their estimate.
-
@jon-nyc said in CDC revises fatality rate:
Even if 100% of cases were over 65 the CDC number would still be off by a factor of 2.
If it were that obvious and the CDC posted it they should have been gone a long long time ago.
But getting back to who Covid is really lethal to at scale, I think all media has done a miserable job of telling that story. And it is important because some people have a sense and it is part of the tension to open the country and economy again.
-
@jon-nyc said in CDC revises fatality rate:
@Horace said in CDC revises fatality rate:
It doesn't seem drastically different from their estimate for CFR in the elderly. Of that 21k, what is the age breakdown?
Even if 100% of cases (not deaths) were over 65, it would still be double their estimate.
I was going by 21k deaths out of 20% of 8.4m which is 1.25%, below their estimate for 65+ individuals. I understand that you can zoom in on each of those numbers to find reasons it's a flawed estimate. But an important piece of info would be the age breakdown of the 21k.
-
@Loki said in CDC revises fatality rate:
@jon-nyc said in CDC revises fatality rate:
Even if 100% of cases were over 65 the CDC number would still be off by a factor of 2.
If it were that obvious and the CDC posted it they should have been gone a long long time ago.
But getting back to who Covid is really lethal to at scale, I think all media has done a miserable job of telling that story. And it is important because some people have a sense and it is part of the tension to open the country and economy again.
I am not holding my breath for any smart, numerate folk to take a public deep dive into the IFR for healthy young adults. I am glad the CDC did. Nobody else has so much as attempted to do so, from what I've seen.
-
@Horace said in CDC revises fatality rate:
@jon-nyc said in CDC revises fatality rate:
@Horace said in CDC revises fatality rate:
It doesn't seem drastically different from their estimate for CFR in the elderly. Of that 21k, what is the age breakdown?
Even if 100% of cases (not deaths) were over 65, it would still be double their estimate.
I was going by 21k deaths out of 20% of 8.4m which is 1.25%, below their estimate for 65+ individuals. I understand that you can zoom in on each of those numbers to find reasons it's a flawed estimate. But an important piece of info would be the age breakdown of the 21k.
Your mistake was not taking into account their 35% asymptomatic number. Which would push it to 2%.
-
Not to mention that the 65+ age bucket certainly has drastically different expectations of fatality after symptomatic infection, when further broken down by age. I would not be surprised if an 85 year old had several multiples of the risk of a 65 year old.
-
@Horace said in CDC revises fatality rate:
Right there in the story was that NY was sending its covid patients back to the nursing homes. There is reason to believe that the population who were dying had a greater than 20% rate of infection.
Yup, versus the much maligned gov of Florida who separated the elderly...and when Florida opened faster than the rest of the country and didn’t have disaster, the evil incarnate governor fell off the media pages.
-
I dont see either one of your points. - no conceivable demographic details get you from a 0.25% population fatality rate to a 0.26% infection fatality rate with a 20% serology result. And no conceivable fact about nursing homes or inter-state comparisons gets you there either.
-
@jon-nyc said in CDC revises fatality rate:
I dont see either one of your points. - no conceivable demographic details get you from a 0.25% population fatality rate to a 0.26% infection fatality rate with a 20% serology result. And no conceivable fact about nursing homes or inter-state comparisons gets you there either.
It seems conceivable that the 20% underestimates the rate of infection of the pool of folk who comprised the numerator of the fatality rate. I don't mean to make the tautology that if you died of it then you had it, i mean to say that they came from an identifiable cohort (nursing homes?) with far greater than 20% infection rate.
-
Right. So sample bias in serology because serology test recipients were unlikely to be nursing home residents.
That’s a point, though even if every New Yorker over 75 was positive and unaccounted for in the serology sample that would bring us to 25% infection rate rather than 20%
