I did not. 83 million is ~25% of 330 million infected as of Jan 19th
-
-
Replying to @GidMK @JonStanich
This may well still be too high, as it is inferred from several biased sources, but it is probably not wildly off overall
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @GidMK
So this data is claiming that Asymptomatic is only ~15% higher than Symptomatic. Does that seem right?
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @JonStanich
That accords with current best evidence, including two systematic reviews on the topic yes. Between 15-20% is the current best estimate
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @GidMK
Got it, thanks. This implies there is ~3X more infections than tested cases. I would have expected that to be higher, at least 5X.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @JonStanich
The ratio changes over time. At the start of the pandemic, it was almost certainly 10x or higher. Currently, it is probably closer to 2.5x or lower. Testing changes have a huge impact
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @GidMK
Last question is about the timeframe. CDC says "CDC estimates that from February–December 2020." There were ~350K deaths at the end of Dec. Hence 350K/83M gives ~0.4% IFR. Is that correct?pic.twitter.com/YisHEeDcoT
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @JonStanich
Case reporting is immediate - death reporting is lagged. At best, you'd have to use the death data from the end of January, but it's hard to say exactly because the 83 million estimate presumably includes infections that happened up until the very end of Dec
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @GidMK @JonStanich
Given that infection->death is a 2-3 week timeline, and death->reported death is another 2-4 week timeline, the actual IFR would be calculated on deaths that happened some time between end Jan and now. So likely somewhere between 0.5-0.6% depending on how you calculate
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @GidMK
Right, since this is total infections from February–December 2020, you would have to normalize to account for Jan/Feb. On Dec 30 there were 20M cases, now 35% higher. So if infections are just 20% higher, this gets closer to 0.4% IFR.pic.twitter.com/7oFGvU7Zvu
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
I have no idea what you mean. The entire point is that confirmed case data does not give us a good guide on true infection numbers, but we do need to include a lag because deaths don't happen the day after infection and are not reported for some time after that
-
-
Replying to @GidMK
What I mean is that the 83M total infections is February–December 2020, but you are using total deaths up to Feb 22. Even with lag, you are adding deaths in Jan, but not infections. From Dec 30 to Jan 30 there is 35% more cases so infections is higher than 83M. 25% higher?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @JonStanich
This is the challenge. It is plausible that you could use the deaths number for mid-late Jan to calculate IFR, because infections up until 31/12 would be recorded as deaths at the earliest on 15-22/01
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like - Show replies
New conversation -
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.