News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Coronavirus: A third of hospital patients develop dangerous blood clots. Parent comment

Re:Coronavirus: A third of hospital patients develop dangero... by kaoD on Saturday May 16, 2020 @01:54PM (#23205625)
> The infection fatality rate for this virus is somewhere between 0.5% and 1%

Source? Your link only has CFR (and >10%).

In my country's (CFR ~15%) antibody study (reminder: preliminary data) the IFR is ~1.5%. Both pretty close to initial estimates.

> heavily skewed to the oldest members of the population

And?

Either way: the huge influx of patients completely collapsed the healthcare system, which made it harder to treat everyone else.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Coronavirus: A third of hospital patients develop dangero... by taeric on Saturday May 16, 2020 @02:03PM (#23205712)
I don't think the argument is to not care about the older group. But it is possible more than just deaths are skewed to them. Is also possible age is just a proxy to what the real risk factor is. (My money is still on exposure to lung weakening environments.)

That said, I think the natural next step for this argument is targeted testing at younger populations to see what their IFR is. With stronger (read: expensive) measures to isolate long term care facilities. Occupants, care givers, cooks, cleaners, all. (If the immunity antibody story plays out, work on ways to get antibody positive people in those positions.)

And I will again point out. I'm a random internet poster. No, nobody should do something just because I think it makes sense. :)

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Coronavirus: A third of hospital patients develop dangero... by irq11 on Saturday May 16, 2020 @02:47PM (#23206053)
”Source? Your link only has CFR (and >10%)”

The link I provided has IFR, and is where I got the NYC numbers I quoted. They’re in the bar graph, expressed as rates per 100k.

The best reference I know of for a global, age-adjusted IFR as of early April is here (their estimate is 0.66%):

https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/laninf/PIIS1473-3099...

However, more recent papers have come out, suggesting much lower values. For example, this paper estimates a a value of 0.08% for patients under 70, using antibody data in blood donors in Denmark:

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.24.20075291v...

My stated estimate is conservative. If anything we are continually reducing the number as we gather more data on prevalence. Regardless, a range of 0.5-1% is a safe bound for the highest quality estimates of IFR. The values cited by the OP (>>1.5%) are far too high, and based on severity-biased samples were gathered early in the pandemic.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Coronavirus: A third of hospital patients develop dangero... by kaoD on Saturday May 16, 2020 @03:05PM (#23206229)
> They’re in the bar graph, expressed as rates per 100k.

AFAICT that's per 100k total population, not per 100k infected (which amounts to 0.2% total FR citywide, not even IFR).

Or am I missing the graph you mean?

> The values cited by the OP (>>1.5%) are far too high, and based on severity-biased samples were gathered early in the pandemic.

I am OP. They're based on an antibody study currently ongoing in my country so... no, they're not far too high nor severity-biased. (I'm trying to find links in English, but no luck so far).

[ Parent | on HN ]