Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Infection Fatality Ratio isn't the same thing.

What I did was take outcomes to arrive at death rates as an outcome.

(Dead people/Recovered people) is roughly 4 to 5 percent.

IFR mixes yet to be determined outcomes with already determined outcomes.

This understates the risk, could be considered best case.

That is:

(Dead People/(people currently sick+recovered people))

If everyone currently infected will live, the IFR is a very best case assumption.

On the other hand, if all those currently sick people were to die, that is a worst case scenario.

In my view, anyone gauging their risk on IFR is doing so on a very wide error margin and said error understates real risk considerably.

None of this takes post infection effects into account. Living, but with organ damage is a real thing and we have poor data on it.

The chance of that happening is currently higher than outcome death rates are.



It's not yet to be determined. Cases misses most infections because they're usually mild. Science knows how many people were infected as a result of serological studies that constantly reproduce the same rates of surveillance (cases) and infections (reality).


How is a case in progress not yet to be determined as a matter of outcomes?

By definition, in progress means we have no outcome.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: