CDC revises fatality rate
-
wrote on 25 May 2020, 21:59 last edited by
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?
-
wrote on 25 May 2020, 22:02 last edited by
CDC is using the higher NY number
I can’t upload the screen shot because it’s too big
-
wrote on 25 May 2020, 22:02 last edited by
No I think they’re wrong by minimum a factor of 2.
My guess is 0.5<IFR<0.75
-
wrote on 25 May 2020, 22:18 last edited by
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.
-
wrote on 13 Jul 2020, 16:58 last edited by 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
-
@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
wrote on 13 Jul 2020, 17:01 last edited by@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.
-
wrote on 13 Jul 2020, 17:08 last edited by 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%.
-
wrote on 13 Jul 2020, 17:12 last edited by
-
@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
wrote on 13 Jul 2020, 17:19 last edited by@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.
-
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%.
wrote on 13 Jul 2020, 18:19 last edited by@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.
-
wrote on 13 Jul 2020, 18:24 last edited by
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 40Men 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% -
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 40Men 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%wrote on 13 Jul 2020, 18:38 last edited by@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 40Men 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 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 40Men 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?
wrote on 13 Jul 2020, 18:52 last edited by@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 40Men 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
