More estimates of the IFR of COVID-19 out recently Might start a thread collating the new ones I see
-
-
4 - Belgium New preprint estimates seroprevalence in Belgium as of April 26th at ~6% Population of Belgium - 11,460,000, so ~690,000 infections Implies an IFR of 1.1%pic.twitter.com/g3cHlGhsw5
Show this thread -
This is using death data from the 30th of April to again crudely account for right-censoring
Show this thread -
Another new estimate - the authors of the Geneva seroprevalence study have age-corrected their data and come to an IFR of 0.64%https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.06.10.20127423v1 …
Show this thread -
Second stage of Indiana serology testing has come back, implying 1.5% of the population had been infected (and 0.6% was currently infected) with COVID-19 by 8th June That's 2.1% of 6,732,000 people, or 141,000 infectionspic.twitter.com/Ejq4MmA7Kf
Show this thread -
With 2,413 deaths in Indiana by 13th of June, this implies an infection-fatality rate of 2413/141000 = 1.7% (VERY high)




Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
What death figure to use though?https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1267826525245542401 …
-
I'm using official reported deaths. Currently, there are too many excess mortality estimates to be sure of one. I do suspect that the eventual IFR will be higher, however
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Re: "(Apologies, above tweet should say IFR for the whole of ENGLAND, not the UK. This data is from the ONS testing in England, and the death reports from England as well)" So would this be pertinent?: https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lanpub/PIIS2468-2667(20)30135-3.pdf …pic.twitter.com/rvz3MUhmco
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.