Those numbers are way too high. Could be the raw unmitigated IFR? Definitely, not what you find where you have medicine around. I haven't seen such numbers since the early 6 weeks. That's 2160 per 100000. Something is off.
-
-
Replying to @federicolois @CovidSerology and
2.16% is all cause mortality not just covid related. The covid related rate was 1.57%. The most likely reason it seems high is that the population was part of an ongoing study predating the pandemic. Thus few deaths were missed. Many reports of massive undercounting elsewhere.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @OYCar @CovidSerology and
Still, 1.57% for <60 is unseen almost everywhere. Not even the CFR in UK has such numbers, and if at all recent news is that they have been shown to be overcounting, not undercounting.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @federicolois @OYCar and
An IFR of 1.57 for <60 would have implied to see (rough numbers) like 15000 deaths under 60 in NYC assuming just 20% infected. Doesn't add up.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @federicolois @OYCar and
There are places in the world with very convincing IFRs of 1.3-1.7%. In fact, the recent very large and well-done Italian study of >60,000 people implies an IFR of ~1.7% It has a lot to do with the age groups impacted
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @GidMK @federicolois and
Without a detailed age profile hard to know how extreme these data are. But internal migration for work is quite common in LMICs, which might mean that poor rural communities are disproportionately older than the national average.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @OYCar @federicolois and
Could also be that rural LMIC communities have less ability to cocoon the elderly from infection, lots of potential reasons. Either way, it's not beyond the bounds of plausibility by any means
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Exactly, not outside the bounds of plausibility. The problem is that number is bound to other variables among those age distribution, access to health, etc. IFR of 3% is a normal occurrence in >75yo segments everywhere.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @federicolois @OYCar and
That's not actually true. There are numerous examples of IFR>3% in >75yos. Best current evidence suggests IFR follows an exponential curve by age
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
But for <60yos I haven't seen many cases where IFR goes too much higher than 1%, because as you noted it appears to follow an exponential curve.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Yes that's reasonable
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.