Re:Anders Tegnell defends Sweden's virus approach
by nostromo on Thursday June 04, 2020 @03:40AM
(#23413771)
Everything I was seeing in February for IFR was wildly inflated based on undercounting of infections from lack of testing. I’m curious what you saw that turned out to be correct.
Re:Anders Tegnell defends Sweden's virus approach
by xorfish on Thursday June 04, 2020 @04:08AM
(#23413969)
Scientists and the WHO estimated the IFR to be around 1% in February. Most models that estimate fatalities use that number as well.
That estimate has hardly changed.
Re:Anders Tegnell defends Sweden's virus approach
by thu2111 on Thursday June 04, 2020 @11:07AM
(#23417593)
1%?!
CDC current estimate is around 0.2% and that's certainly still too high, for various reasons.
Re:Anders Tegnell defends Sweden's virus approach
by xorfish on Thursday June 04, 2020 @11:31AM
(#23417960)
Seems highly unlikely, excess mortality is nearly 0.3% of NYC. You would need 150% of NYC to be infected to get to 0.2%.
Many seroprevalence studies with prevalence >5% also show that the IFR is in the region of 1%.
Re:Anders Tegnell defends Sweden's virus approach
by thu2111 on Thursday June 04, 2020 @02:29PM
(#23420057)
https://reason.com/2020/05/24/the-cdcs-new-best-estimate-imp...
"The CDC's New 'Best Estimate' Implies a COVID-19 Infection Fatality Rate Below 0.3%"
The early estimates for the IFR from February turned ouf to be quite accurate.