Coronavirus

[Peregrine]

Yes, emergency care was never stopped but how many people would really know that? Can you expect the vast majority to distinguish between what's considered an emergency and what's not? Can you expect the majority to properly weigh health risks and think rationally when everywhere they look they're reminded of COVID? I think the answer is a clear no given the data in the articles and I think it's a leap too far to assume that the majority of the populace will make rational decisions when the public health messaging on this topic has been ambiguous at best yet extremely black and white on lockdowns.

 

Would it not have been more informative to tweet "Emergency Rooms still open!" than "Liberate Michigan!"?

 

I sympathize with the difficulty in public messaging during a time of panic and confusion. But I don't think public figures have devoted enough attention to nor sounded the alarm enough about the huge public health collateral damage. The media hasn't helped either. That treatments for all these afflictions that are many times as deadly as COVID have been forgone can only be charitably viewed as a failure by public health officials. Moreover, we won't see the effects immediately - they'll only surface over time at which point they'll surely be another data point and forgotten.

[ERICOPOLY]

Yes, emergency care was never stopped but how many people would really know that? Can you expect the vast majority to distinguish between what's considered an emergency and what's not? Can you expect the majority to properly weigh health risks and think rationally when everywhere they look they're reminded of COVID? I think the answer is a clear no given the data in the articles and I think it's a leap too far to assume that the majority of the populace will make rational decisions when the public health messaging on this topic has been ambiguous at best yet extremely black and white on lockdowns.

 

Would it not have been more informative to tweet "Emergency Rooms still open!" than "Liberate Michigan!"?

 

I sympathize with the difficulty in public messaging during a time of panic and confusion. But I don't think public figures have devoted enough attention to nor sounded the alarm enough about the huge public health collateral damage. The media hasn't helped either. That treatments for all these afflictions that are many times as deadly as COVID have been forgone can only be charitably viewed as a failure by public health officials. Moreover, we won't see the effects immediately - they'll only surface over time at which point they'll surely be another data point and forgotten.

 

My wife is in HR at a large healthcare company that owns and operates hospitals and clinics.  She was telling me that some organ transplants didn't happen because they were classified as "elective surgery".

 

She works from home so I hear a lot on the conference calls about the red ink spilling.

[Peregrine]

Yes, emergency care was never stopped but how many people would really know that? Can you expect the vast majority to distinguish between what's considered an emergency and what's not? Can you expect the majority to properly weigh health risks and think rationally when everywhere they look they're reminded of COVID? I think the answer is a clear no given the data in the articles and I think it's a leap too far to assume that the majority of the populace will make rational decisions when the public health messaging on this topic has been ambiguous at best yet extremely black and white on lockdowns.

 

Would it not have been more informative to tweet "Emergency Rooms still open!" than "Liberate Michigan!"?

 

I sympathize with the difficulty in public messaging during a time of panic and confusion. But I don't think public figures have devoted enough attention to nor sounded the alarm enough about the huge public health collateral damage. The media hasn't helped either. That treatments for all these afflictions that are many times as deadly as COVID have been forgone can only be charitably viewed as a failure by public health officials. Moreover, we won't see the effects immediately - they'll only surface over time at which point they'll surely be another data point and forgotten.

 

My wife is in HR at a large healthcare company that owns and operates hospitals and clinics.  She was telling me that some organ transplants didn't happen because they were classified as "elective surgery".

 

She works from home so I hear a lot on the conference calls about the red ink spilling.

 

Yeah, just sad. What demarcates the line between elective and non-elective? It also seems like an arbitrary line that hospitals are unsure of as well.

[KCLarkin]

CDC just came out with their new estimate for the infection fatality ratio (IFR) - 0.27%. Are we just dealing with something as deadly as the flu but since it's novel, it's far more easily spread?

 

Hey! Can people who have no idea what the IFR of the flu is please stop saying Covid "is just as deadly as the flu"?

[Jurgis]

And it's not just suicides, but there's been growing evidence of collateral damage in a lot of other areas in public health.

 

Here are a few other examples:

 

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/05/18/nation/major-boston-hospital-finds-dramatic-drop-stroke-heart-attack-cancer-patients-during-coronavirus-pandemic/

 

https://www.statnews.com/2020/05/22/who-routine-childhood-vaccinations-disrupted-coronavirus/?utm_content=buffer1f412&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=twitter_organic

 

The prior article on the suicides suggested that lifting the lockdown will reduce the suicide rate.

 

Those new articles you offer are suggesting that COVID-19 is scaring them from coming in to the hospital or clinic, which were never locked down for heart attack and stroke patients.  They will vaccinate your children.  Lifting a lockdown may scare these people even more if it led to an increase in the numbers of people infected with COVID-19.

 

If a major part of the rationale for a lockdown was its practicality, then I think that public health officials were very impractical in not sufficiently considering the second order effects from the lockdown.

 

Yes, emergency care was never stopped but how many people would really know that? Can you expect the vast majority to distinguish between what's considered an emergency and what's not? Can you expect the majority to properly weigh health risks and think rationally when everywhere they look they're reminded of COVID? I think the answer is a clear no given the data in the articles and I think it's a leap too far to assume that the majority of the populace will make rational decisions when the public health messaging on this topic has been ambiguous at best yet extremely black and white on lockdowns.

 

So basically you are saying that everything should open and people should be told that going out is perfectly safe so that the people who don't understand that medical clinics are open would go there?

 

Medical clinics actually have been emailing their patients and telling them what is open and what they should do if they have medical condition - whether emergency or chronic one.

[ERICOPOLY]

Yes, emergency care was never stopped but how many people would really know that? Can you expect the vast majority to distinguish between what's considered an emergency and what's not? Can you expect the majority to properly weigh health risks and think rationally when everywhere they look they're reminded of COVID? I think the answer is a clear no given the data in the articles and I think it's a leap too far to assume that the majority of the populace will make rational decisions when the public health messaging on this topic has been ambiguous at best yet extremely black and white on lockdowns.

 

Would it not have been more informative to tweet "Emergency Rooms still open!" than "Liberate Michigan!"?

 

I sympathize with the difficulty in public messaging during a time of panic and confusion. But I don't think public figures have devoted enough attention to nor sounded the alarm enough about the huge public health collateral damage. The media hasn't helped either. That treatments for all these afflictions that are many times as deadly as COVID have been forgone can only be charitably viewed as a failure by public health officials. Moreover, we won't see the effects immediately - they'll only surface over time at which point they'll surely be another data point and forgotten.

 

My wife is in HR at a large healthcare company that owns and operates hospitals and clinics.  She was telling me that some organ transplants didn't happen because they were classified as "elective surgery".

 

She works from home so I hear a lot on the conference calls about the red ink spilling.

 

Yeah, just sad. What demarcates the line between elective and non-elective? It also seems like an arbitrary line that hospitals are unsure of as well.

 

Any scheduled surgery is elective.  Cancer surgery is elective because it is scheduled.

 

They were all banned in order to make room for the surge that never came close to occurring.  Meanwhile, the elective surgeries are the bread-and-butter cash cow for the company.  Cancelling surgeries was supposed to free up staff, but instead they had to lay off staff.

 

Mistakes were made in what was locked down, but it would look different if the surge really did come.

[Peregrine]

CDC just came out with their new estimate for the infection fatality ratio (IFR) - 0.27%. Are we just dealing with something as deadly as the flu but since it's novel, it's far more easily spread?

 

Hey! Can people who have no idea what the IFR of the flu is please stop saying Covid "is just as deadly as the flu"?

 

I'm just posing the question - not sure if it's deadlier or not deadlier than the flu. Indications in some places (NYC, Italy) says that it is while in other places (Singapore, Japan) says that it isn't. Flu deaths are also highly ambiguous and aren't counted the same as COVID is, so I'm not sure the quoted IFRs here (0.27% vs 0.1%) are even directly comparable, plus there's high degrees of variation between demographics/general health condition in the affected population/quality of health systems/etc.

[ERICOPOLY]

The other part of this compound issue is that schools and daycares were closed.  A lot of hospital and clinic staff have kids and couldn't come in to perform those surgeries regardless.

[Peregrine]

Yes, emergency care was never stopped but how many people would really know that? Can you expect the vast majority to distinguish between what's considered an emergency and what's not? Can you expect the majority to properly weigh health risks and think rationally when everywhere they look they're reminded of COVID? I think the answer is a clear no given the data in the articles and I think it's a leap too far to assume that the majority of the populace will make rational decisions when the public health messaging on this topic has been ambiguous at best yet extremely black and white on lockdowns.

 

Would it not have been more informative to tweet "Emergency Rooms still open!" than "Liberate Michigan!"?

 

I sympathize with the difficulty in public messaging during a time of panic and confusion. But I don't think public figures have devoted enough attention to nor sounded the alarm enough about the huge public health collateral damage. The media hasn't helped either. That treatments for all these afflictions that are many times as deadly as COVID have been forgone can only be charitably viewed as a failure by public health officials. Moreover, we won't see the effects immediately - they'll only surface over time at which point they'll surely be another data point and forgotten.

 

My wife is in HR at a large healthcare company that owns and operates hospitals and clinics.  She was telling me that some organ transplants didn't happen because they were classified as "elective surgery".

 

She works from home so I hear a lot on the conference calls about the red ink spilling.

 

Yeah, just sad. What demarcates the line between elective and non-elective? It also seems like an arbitrary line that hospitals are unsure of as well.

 

Any scheduled surgery is elective.  Cancer surgery is elective because it is scheduled.

 

They were all banned in order to make room for the surge that never came close to occurring.  Meanwhile, the elective surgeries are the bread-and-butter cash cow for the company.  Cancelling surgeries was supposed to free up staff, but instead they had to lay off staff.

 

Mistakes were made in what was locked down, but it would look different if the surge really did come.

 

That makes sense - thanks. I'm surprised by that because wouldn't some people who really needed surgeries were denied then?

[Jurgis]

Yes, emergency care was never stopped but how many people would really know that? Can you expect the vast majority to distinguish between what's considered an emergency and what's not? Can you expect the majority to properly weigh health risks and think rationally when everywhere they look they're reminded of COVID? I think the answer is a clear no given the data in the articles and I think it's a leap too far to assume that the majority of the populace will make rational decisions when the public health messaging on this topic has been ambiguous at best yet extremely black and white on lockdowns.

 

Would it not have been more informative to tweet "Emergency Rooms still open!" than "Liberate Michigan!"?

 

I sympathize with the difficulty in public messaging during a time of panic and confusion. But I don't think public figures have devoted enough attention to nor sounded the alarm enough about the huge public health collateral damage. The media hasn't helped either. That treatments for all these afflictions that are many times as deadly as COVID have been forgone can only be charitably viewed as a failure by public health officials. Moreover, we won't see the effects immediately - they'll only surface over time at which point they'll surely be another data point and forgotten.

 

My wife is in HR at a large healthcare company that owns and operates hospitals and clinics.  She was telling me that some organ transplants didn't happen because they were classified as "elective surgery".

 

She works from home so I hear a lot on the conference calls about the red ink spilling.

 

Yeah, just sad. What demarcates the line between elective and non-elective? It also seems like an arbitrary line that hospitals are unsure of as well.

 

Any scheduled surgery is elective.  Cancer surgery is elective because it is scheduled.

 

They were all banned in order to make room for the surge that never came close to occurring.  Meanwhile, the elective surgeries are the bread-and-butter cash cow for the company.  Cancelling surgeries was supposed to free up staff, but instead they had to lay off staff.

 

Mistakes were made in what was locked down, but it would look different if the surge really did come.

 

This pretty much.

 

I think this discussion is a bit colored by locality too. Some clinics closed everything preparing for the surge. Some already reopened. Some never closed. Even in California friend's wife works in Stanford cancer center (not sure exact name), and AFAIK they never closed.

[KCLarkin]

CDC just came out with their new estimate for the infection fatality ratio (IFR) - 0.27%. Are we just dealing with something as deadly as the flu but since it's novel, it's far more easily spread?

 

Hey! Can people who have no idea what the IFR of the flu is please stop saying Covid "is just as deadly as the flu"?

 

I'm just posing the question - not sure if it's deadlier or not deadlier than the flu. Indications in some places (NYC, Italy) says that it is while in other places (Singapore, Japan) says that it isn't. Flu deaths are also highly ambiguous and aren't counted the same as COVID is, so I'm not sure the quoted IFRs here (0.27% vs 0.1%) are even directly comparable, plus there's high degrees of variation between demographics/general health condition in the affected population/quality of health systems/etc.

 

Okay, fine. Then the answer is no. Covid is approximately 10x deadlier than the flu.

[stahleyp]

For those that think governments should require masks in order to "save lives," do you also think the government should ban abortions to "save lives?"

 

If not, why do you believe in "my body, my choice" for for one and not the other? The death rate on abortion (for the aborted humans) is far, far higher than the death rate from covid19.

 

LOL.  How about ban cars?  Why abortions?  The ultimate political hijacking thwarted (I hope).

 

Covid 19 has killed more than cars. Abortion has killed more than covid19.

 

Keep in mind, my argument isn't just saving lives, it's also about what the government say we can (or cannot do) to our bodies.  Why is it okay to use the slogan only when it benefits your political ideology?

 

Are you seriously comparing the cost (human, not financial though that also probably applies) of having an abortion and not wearing a mask??? Further, the mask is probably going to save the health of many people at very little cost and inconvenience to the wearer.

 

I am also curious about what you think of the modesty laws which are more stringent in the US than Europe? Why are those laws okay when it concerns your body and why haven't there been many protests encouraged by the president on that incredible violation of freedom compared to the simple requirement to wear a mask?

 

I would argue the human cost is far, far higher with abortion than covid19 (so far anyway). financially? I don't know.

 

I haven't thought much about modesty laws. I don't see how what to wear (or not) is violating "speech" though.

 

I am talking about the cost incurred of wearing a mask vs that incurred by an abortion. The former is almost costless and has a significant benefit while the latter has a very high cost. The only reason not to wear the mask given the low cost of the effort seems to be the disrespect of the health of others. It is really very similar to the wearing of a seatbelt - very low cost and increases your and other's safety tremendously (especially if everyone is involved in not wearing the mask as that reduces R0 tremendously and stops the pandemic in the tracks).

 

Also, how is required wearing of a mask violating free speech any more than the modesty laws? The banning of hijabs etc is a much more direct violation of free speech but I usually see little objection to that, especially among the right wing (though this is only an issue in Europe).

 

Wouldn't you say that abortion is very disrespectful to the health of the one being aborted? I would think that banning abortion would be far less expensive than using masks. You could ban them for free. Masks aren't free. I also don't see why wearing seat belts is required if people want "choice."

 

I just find it funny that people want government to control others when it suits their interests/wants but not in areas that they don't want to be told what to do. It doesn't make much sense.

[ERICOPOLY]

Yes, emergency care was never stopped but how many people would really know that? Can you expect the vast majority to distinguish between what's considered an emergency and what's not? Can you expect the majority to properly weigh health risks and think rationally when everywhere they look they're reminded of COVID? I think the answer is a clear no given the data in the articles and I think it's a leap too far to assume that the majority of the populace will make rational decisions when the public health messaging on this topic has been ambiguous at best yet extremely black and white on lockdowns.

 

Would it not have been more informative to tweet "Emergency Rooms still open!" than "Liberate Michigan!"?

 

I sympathize with the difficulty in public messaging during a time of panic and confusion. But I don't think public figures have devoted enough attention to nor sounded the alarm enough about the huge public health collateral damage. The media hasn't helped either. That treatments for all these afflictions that are many times as deadly as COVID have been forgone can only be charitably viewed as a failure by public health officials. Moreover, we won't see the effects immediately - they'll only surface over time at which point they'll surely be another data point and forgotten.

 

My wife is in HR at a large healthcare company that owns and operates hospitals and clinics.  She was telling me that some organ transplants didn't happen because they were classified as "elective surgery".

 

She works from home so I hear a lot on the conference calls about the red ink spilling.

 

Yeah, just sad. What demarcates the line between elective and non-elective? It also seems like an arbitrary line that hospitals are unsure of as well.

 

Any scheduled surgery is elective.  Cancer surgery is elective because it is scheduled.

 

They were all banned in order to make room for the surge that never came close to occurring.  Meanwhile, the elective surgeries are the bread-and-butter cash cow for the company.  Cancelling surgeries was supposed to free up staff, but instead they had to lay off staff.

 

Mistakes were made in what was locked down, but it would look different if the surge really did come.

 

This pretty much.

 

I think this discussion is a bit colored by locality too. Some clinics closed everything preparing for the surge. Some already reopened. Some never closed. Even in California friend's wife works in Stanford cancer center (not sure exact name), and AFAIK they never closed.

 

My wife's laser hair removal was never cancelled.  You could get it removed in California, but you could not have it styled.

[Peregrine]

CDC just came out with their new estimate for the infection fatality ratio (IFR) - 0.27%. Are we just dealing with something as deadly as the flu but since it's novel, it's far more easily spread?

 

Hey! Can people who have no idea what the IFR of the flu is please stop saying Covid "is just as deadly as the flu"?

 

I'm just posing the question - not sure if it's deadlier or not deadlier than the flu. Indications in some places (NYC, Italy) says that it is while in other places (Singapore, Japan) says that it isn't. Flu deaths are also highly ambiguous and aren't counted the same as COVID is, so I'm not sure the quoted IFRs here (0.27% vs 0.1%) are even directly comparable, plus there's high degrees of variation between demographics/general health condition in the affected population/quality of health systems/etc.

 

Okay, fine. Then the answer is no. Covid is approximately 10x deadlier than the flu.

 

I"m always skeptical when people answer so definitely to questions for which the answer is still very much in doubt. The CDC just revised their estimates down to an COVID IFR of 0.27%. If IFR for the flu is the commonly accepted 0.1%, that'd make it 2.7x not 10x.

[ERICOPOLY]

That makes sense - thanks. I'm surprised by that because wouldn't some people who really needed surgeries were denied then?

 

At the time, the surge was expected as imminent within a few weeks.  The calendars were cleared of elective surgeries, because they could all be postponed for a while (define "really need", it's a tricky definition.  They really need the surgery, but could wait a few weeks perhaps). 

 

In comparison, the guy who needs an immediate heart bypass surgery was able to get one.

[rb]

CDC just came out with their new estimate for the infection fatality ratio (IFR) - 0.27%. Are we just dealing with something as deadly as the flu but since it's novel, it's far more easily spread?

 

Hey! Can people who have no idea what the IFR of the flu is please stop saying Covid "is just as deadly as the flu"?

 

I'm just posing the question - not sure if it's deadlier or not deadlier than the flu. Indications in some places (NYC, Italy) says that it is while in other places (Singapore, Japan) says that it isn't. Flu deaths are also highly ambiguous and aren't counted the same as COVID is, so I'm not sure the quoted IFRs here (0.27% vs 0.1%) are even directly comparable, plus there's high degrees of variation between demographics/general health condition in the affected population/quality of health systems/etc.

 

Okay, fine. Then the answer is no. Covid is approximately 10x deadlier than the flu.

 

I"m always skeptical when people answer so definitely to questions for which the answer is still very much in doubt. The CDC just revised their estimates down to an COVID IFR of 0.27%. If IFR for the flu is the commonly accepted 0.1%, that'd make it 2.7x not 10x.

You're confusing IFR with CFR.

[ERICOPOLY]

The CDC just revised their estimates down to an COVID IFR of 0.27%. If IFR for the flu is the commonly accepted 0.1%, that'd make it 2.7x not 10x.

 

Regardless of comparing rates, the population of people susceptible is also vastly higher (because of no vaccinations or natural immunity).

 

[KCLarkin]

CDC just came out with their new estimate for the infection fatality ratio (IFR) - 0.27%. Are we just dealing with something as deadly as the flu but since it's novel, it's far more easily spread?

 

Hey! Can people who have no idea what the IFR of the flu is please stop saying Covid "is just as deadly as the flu"?

 

I'm just posing the question - not sure if it's deadlier or not deadlier than the flu. Indications in some places (NYC, Italy) says that it is while in other places (Singapore, Japan) says that it isn't. Flu deaths are also highly ambiguous and aren't counted the same as COVID is, so I'm not sure the quoted IFRs here (0.27% vs 0.1%) are even directly comparable, plus there's high degrees of variation between demographics/general health condition in the affected population/quality of health systems/etc.

 

Okay, fine. Then the answer is no. Covid is approximately 10x deadlier than the flu.

 

I"m always skeptical when people answer so definitely to questions for which the answer is still very much in doubt. The CDC just revised their estimates down to an COVID IFR of 0.27%. If IFR for the flu is the commonly accepted 0.1%, that'd make it 2.7x not 10x.

 

I'm always skeptical when people answer so definitely to questions for which the answer is still very much in doubt. If you believe that the IFR of Covid is precisely 0.27%, then why shouldn't you believe that Covid is precisely 9.76x as deadly as the flu?

 

--

Edit to add: Your gullibility is obvious: the CDC only gave an "estimate" for IFR-S and that number was 0.4%. Someone else fed you the 0.27% number. But the next question you'd want to ask, is where did the CDC get this number? As far as I can tell, they just made it up.

 

At the very least, any credible estimate of IFR would be a fairly wide range (say 0.3-1.5%) (numbers completely made up). Even the IFR for Flu, which is much better understood, has an enormous estimated range.

 

[Peregrine]

CDC just came out with their new estimate for the infection fatality ratio (IFR) - 0.27%. Are we just dealing with something as deadly as the flu but since it's novel, it's far more easily spread?

 

Hey! Can people who have no idea what the IFR of the flu is please stop saying Covid "is just as deadly as the flu"?

 

I'm just posing the question - not sure if it's deadlier or not deadlier than the flu. Indications in some places (NYC, Italy) says that it is while in other places (Singapore, Japan) says that it isn't. Flu deaths are also highly ambiguous and aren't counted the same as COVID is, so I'm not sure the quoted IFRs here (0.27% vs 0.1%) are even directly comparable, plus there's high degrees of variation between demographics/general health condition in the affected population/quality of health systems/etc.

 

Okay, fine. Then the answer is no. Covid is approximately 10x deadlier than the flu.

 

I"m always skeptical when people answer so definitely to questions for which the answer is still very much in doubt. The CDC just revised their estimates down to an COVID IFR of 0.27%. If IFR for the flu is the commonly accepted 0.1%, that'd make it 2.7x not 10x.

You're confusing IFR with CFR.

 

I'm really not. Most estimates of flu IFR I've seen hold it at 0.1%. Since most flu cases aren't confirmed or identified, these are necessarily estimates.

[Peregrine]

CDC just came out with their new estimate for the infection fatality ratio (IFR) - 0.27%. Are we just dealing with something as deadly as the flu but since it's novel, it's far more easily spread?

 

Hey! Can people who have no idea what the IFR of the flu is please stop saying Covid "is just as deadly as the flu"?

 

I'm just posing the question - not sure if it's deadlier or not deadlier than the flu. Indications in some places (NYC, Italy) says that it is while in other places (Singapore, Japan) says that it isn't. Flu deaths are also highly ambiguous and aren't counted the same as COVID is, so I'm not sure the quoted IFRs here (0.27% vs 0.1%) are even directly comparable, plus there's high degrees of variation between demographics/general health condition in the affected population/quality of health systems/etc.

 

Okay, fine. Then the answer is no. Covid is approximately 10x deadlier than the flu.

 

I"m always skeptical when people answer so definitely to questions for which the answer is still very much in doubt. The CDC just revised their estimates down to an COVID IFR of 0.27%. If IFR for the flu is the commonly accepted 0.1%, that'd make it 2.7x not 10x.

 

I'm always skeptical when people answer so definitely to questions for which the answer is still very much in doubt. If you believe that the IFR of Covid is precisely 0.27%, then why shouldn't you believe that Covid is precisely 9.76x as deadly as the flu?

 

I didn't say that - it's the newest estimate provided by the CDC.

[KCLarkin]

I didn't say that - it's the newest estimate provided by the CDC.

 

See my edits above. AFAIK, the CDC never said 0.27%. Someone else made that inference based on CDC estimated IFR-S of 0.4%.

[Peregrine]

I didn't say that - it's the newest estimate provided by the CDC.

 

See my edits above. AFAIK, the CDC never said 0.27%. Someone else made that inference based on CDC estimated IFR-S of 0.4%.

 

Yup. So 0.4% IFR for symptomatic and 35% asymmptomatic mix gets u 0.27%.

[KCLarkin]

I didn't say that - it's the newest estimate provided by the CDC.

 

See my edits above. AFAIK, the CDC never said 0.27%. Someone else made that inference based on CDC estimated IFR-S of 0.4%.

 

Yup. So 0.4% IFR for symptomatic and 35% asymmptomatic mix gets u 0.27%.

 

Um...sure... let's multiply a highly uncertain IFR-S estimate with a highly uncertain asymptomatic rate to get a very precise IFR. And then compare to a highly uncertain "commonly accepted" estimate of the IFR-S for flu. Sounds rigorous. Sorry that the 10x number I pulled out of my keister isn't rigorous enough for you.

[Peregrine]

I didn't say that - it's the newest estimate provided by the CDC.

 

See my edits above. AFAIK, the CDC never said 0.27%. Someone else made that inference based on CDC estimated IFR-S of 0.4%.

 

Yup. So 0.4% IFR for symptomatic and 35% asymmptomatic mix gets u 0.27%.

 

Um...sure... let's multiply a highly uncertain IFR-S estimate with a highly uncertain asymptomatic rate to get a very precise IFR. And then compare to a highly uncertain "commonly accepted" estimate of the IFR-S for flu. Sounds rigorous. Sorry that the 10x number I pulled out of my keister isn't rigorous enough for you.

 

I think you're mistaking what I'm saying. I'm citing CDC's latest "best estimate". Maybe it's best we leave it there.

[KCLarkin]

CDC just came out with their new estimate for the infection fatality ratio (IFR) - 0.27%. Are we just dealing with something as deadly as the flu but since it's novel, it's far more easily spread?

 

Hey! Can people who have no idea what the IFR of the flu is please stop saying Covid "is just as deadly as the flu"?

Indications in some places (NYC, Italy) says that it is while in other places (Singapore, Japan) says that it isn't.

 

Sorry I missed this the first time. There is pretty strong evidence that IFR is much higher for the elderly, obese, blacks, and hispanics. IFR estimates from Asia populations probably not relevant here.