You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
CNN reports on the CDC's parameters. https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/22/health/cdc-coronavirus-estimates-symptoms-deaths/index.html …pic.twitter.com/hkzFgzBAXG
For people who don't like the Imperial College numbers, here is the CDC's parameter range overlaid against the data from the meta-analysis cited above (https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.03.20089854v2.full.pdf …)pic.twitter.com/FqbwSFPv8o
The CDC has updated their IFR estimates to a range of 0.5-0.8%, with a best guess of 0.65%.
These seem reasonable to me, they reflect current consensus thinking, and I'm pleased to see this. h/t @geoffmpricehttps://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html#table-1 …
Of course IFR not a universal constant; it varies by location according to demographics, risk factors, mode of transmission and viral load, etc. It could end up being higher in some places, or lower in others. But the range 0.5-0.8% seems good for e.g. a 25%-75% confidence range.
I'd been saying 0.5-1.5% for several months. In general, IFR estimates seem to have be converging on the lower half of this range, perhaps dipping lower domestically due to the demographic skew of cases during US reopening. Unfortunately as older people are infected, it can rise.
One recent paper estimates an IFR toward the top end of my 0.5-1.5% range in NYC during its first wave. I have not spent enough time with this paper to have a strong judgment about that value, but want to share it for context.https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.06.27.20141689v1 …
So... the CDC took the approx. average of the three lowest estimates, ignored the rest, and slapped a "best estimate" bow on that? Am I reading this right? 
I think the Imperial College numbers represents a worse case scenario; however, the worst case is exactly how you should plan.
If the CDC was claiming an IFR it would reasonable, and in line with the published estimates in this meta-analysis (the higher estimates come from preprints). What makes it seem like a real stretch is claiming it's a s-CFR. And they don't even define what counts as symptomatic?
They are using CFR in a nonstandard way (ie to mean IFR and not crude CFR). Wouldn’t be first time. The nomenclature is far from consistent. Their usage is apparent from their definition. Denominator = # experiencing symptoms from infection, NOT casespic.twitter.com/2BLwTaKq4w
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
