Infection fatality rate of Covid-19 inferred from seroprevalence data [pdf]
1–10 of 400 posts
Re: Infection fatality rate of Covid-19 inferred from seroprevalence data [pdf]
#2For comparison, from what I've read the typical annual influenza fatality rate is around 0.1% (don't know what the under-70 rate would be). So, this puts covid-19 solidly in the uncanny valley of viral mortality rates; not low enough to be "just like a flu", not high enough to justify shutting down the world. No wonder opinions on it are so divided.
Re: Infection fatality rate of Covid-19 inferred from seroprevalence data [pdf]
#3For comparison, from what I've read the typical annual influenza fatality rate is around 0.1% (don't know what the under-70 rate would be). So, this puts covid-19 solidly in the uncanny valley of viral mortality rates; not low enough to be "just like a flu", not high enough to justify shutting down the world. No wonder opinions on it are so divided.
3 deaths per 1000 infections is a pretty strong motivation to prevent infections, it doesn't need to be a contest between doing nothing and shutting down the world, strategies for reducing transmission can be independently evaluated.
And when you add in fewer older people getting infected when there are fewer infections in general, well, there you go.
Re: Infection fatality rate of Covid-19 inferred from seroprevalence data [pdf]
#4For comparison, from what I've read the typical annual influenza fatality rate is around 0.1% (don't know what the under-70 rate would be). So, this puts covid-19 solidly in the uncanny valley of viral mortality rates; not low enough to be "just like a flu", not high enough to justify shutting down the world. No wonder opinions on it are so divided.
(1) A COVID-19 infection can have long-term effects even in young people.
(2) We all have seen the images of hospitals overwhelmed with COVID-19 patients, not having enough breathers, etc. For some reason this doesn't happen with the typical annual influenza ...
If you reduce everything to statistics about mortality rates, you are missing very important parts of the picture.
Re: Infection fatality rate of Covid-19 inferred from seroprevalence data [pdf]
#5Some people will misinterpret the conclusion. It varies significantly by age brackets not considered in the paper.
A 40 year old would be mistaken to assume their fatality chance is 0.31%.
Re: Infection fatality rate of Covid-19 inferred from seroprevalence data [pdf]
#6For comparison, from what I've read the typical annual influenza fatality rate is around 0.1% (don't know what the under-70 rate would be). So, this puts covid-19 solidly in the uncanny valley of viral mortality rates; not low enough to be "just like a flu", not high enough to justify shutting down the world. No wonder opinions on it are so divided.
3 deaths per 1000 infections is a pretty strong motivation to prevent infections, it doesn't need to be a contest between doing nothing and shutting down the world, strategies for reducing transmission can be independently evaluated. And when you add in fewer older people getting infected when there are fewer infections in general, well, there you go.
Extreme poverty is expected increased by 150 million people world wide bc of Covid.
I'd wager there's a lot of people whose kids are running around a shantytown shoeless who would disagree with your levels of risk.
Re: Infection fatality rate of Covid-19 inferred from seroprevalence data [pdf]
#7For comparison, from what I've read the typical annual influenza fatality rate is around 0.1% (don't know what the under-70 rate would be). So, this puts covid-19 solidly in the uncanny valley of viral mortality rates; not low enough to be "just like a flu", not high enough to justify shutting down the world. No wonder opinions on it are so divided.
3 deaths per 1000 infections is a pretty strong motivation to prevent infections, it doesn't need to be a contest between doing nothing and shutting down the world, strategies for reducing transmission can be independently evaluated. And when you add in fewer older people getting infected when there are fewer infections in general, well, there you go.
Why 3 in 1,000 and what’s the threshold you’d accept and why?
Re: Infection fatality rate of Covid-19 inferred from seroprevalence data [pdf]
#8For comparison, from what I've read the typical annual influenza fatality rate is around 0.1% (don't know what the under-70 rate would be). So, this puts covid-19 solidly in the uncanny valley of viral mortality rates; not low enough to be "just like a flu", not high enough to justify shutting down the world. No wonder opinions on it are so divided.
(1) A COVID-19 infection can have long-term effects even in young people. (2) We all have seen the images of hospitals overwhelmed with COVID-19 patients, not having enough breathers, etc. For some reason this doesn't happen with the typical annual influenza ... If you reduce everything to statistics about mortality rates, you are missing very important parts of the picture.
(1) Need sources. This is extremely extremely extremely rare if so, and very speculative and unproven with no hard science.
(2) This is also extremely extremely rare in under 70 population.
Horrible things happen ALL THE TIME but there's a statistically miniscule chance of it happening to you.
Everything in life is dangerous if you look at life the way you're championing.
I think you might just be scared of LIFE in general.
Re: Infection fatality rate of Covid-19 inferred from seroprevalence data [pdf]
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
3 deaths per 1000 infections is a pretty strong motivation to prevent infections, it doesn't need to be a contest between doing nothing and shutting down the world, strategies for reducing transmission can be independently evaluated. And when you add in fewer older people getting infected when there are fewer infections in general, well, there you go.
Extreme poverty is expected increased by 150 million people world wide bc of Covid. I'd wager there's a lot of people whose kids are running around a shantytown shoeless who would disagree with your levels of risk.
I don't understand what part of my comment you are responding to.
Re: Infection fatality rate of Covid-19 inferred from seroprevalence data [pdf]
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
3 deaths per 1000 infections is a pretty strong motivation to prevent infections, it doesn't need to be a contest between doing nothing and shutting down the world, strategies for reducing transmission can be independently evaluated. And when you add in fewer older people getting infected when there are fewer infections in general, well, there you go.
Why 3 in 1,000 and what’s the threshold you’d accept and why?
The initial headline of the article stated that the infection fatality rate for people under 70 is 0.3%.
'threshold you'd accept' isn't a response to my comment, which expressly rejects the idea that there are only 2 options. Some mitigations are only justified by very high levels of risk. Others are justified by much lower levels of risk.