to 
Since July, my team at @cmudelphi has been tracking the dropping case fatality rate, deciphering what share of the drop might owe to actual drops due to treatment (vs testing, younger infectees, etc). Drops of 55-60% appear plausible! Learn more here:https://delphi.cmu.edu/blog/2021/01/28/unpacking-the-drop-in-covid-19-case-fatality-rates/ …
I probably have a lot of stupid questions about the article, based on things I noticed in the U.K. Are we sure reported cases are a true representation on the number of cases? More how reliable is the data to begin with? (We had issues with data reliability in the U.K.).
-
-
In the HFR definition, shouldn’t we be looking at excessive deaths? And factor # of deaths caused by people who’s treatments or surgeries were delayed. Wouldn’t that give a truer representation? (Not relying on the # of reported cases; which have their own uncertainty.)
-
Maybe it’s a really stupid point. It was an issue in the U.K. gov reporting. It turned out the # of deaths were significant higher than what was being reported. Independent assessors were able to figure out a more accurate representation by looking at excess deaths.
Koniec rozmowy
Nowa rozmowa -
-
-
Hey, we are *not*! That's the whole problem. Cases means "confirmed cases" not "actual infections. They can grow if infections go up but also if testing goes up. That's why our analysis is so crucial. We focus on hospital data, where testing is more reliable.
-
That’s helpful to know. I don’t know about the U.S, but atm U.K. hospitals are at capacity. So there may be a disconnect between hospital # and what’s happening in the community. Early in the pandemic, hospitals were recording known COVID deaths as other complications.
- Pokaż odpowiedzi
Nowa rozmowa -
Wydaje się, że ładowanie zajmuje dużo czasu.
Twitter jest przeciążony lub wystąpił chwilowy problem. Spróbuj ponownie lub sprawdź status Twittera, aby uzyskać więcej informacji.