OSUmetstud

True. Good catch. It will make a very small difference in the overall IFR since the 20-49 mortality component is very small there on the right. Why do I need to fix the 80+ number? It jives with the study that the CDC based those numbers on.

I mean we can debate policy. But debating this is ridiculous. Do the math yourself.

No. The 0.054 is for the 70-79 bracket. The estimates for persons ≥70 years old presented here do not include persons ≥80 years old as IFR estimates from Hauser et al., assumed that 100% of infections among persons ≥80 years old were reported. The consolidated age estimates were then averaged across the 6 European regions. The lower bound estimate is the lowest, non-zero point estimate across the six regions, while the upper bound is the highest point estimate across the six regions.

I already posted it above in that table. I didnt make it up. The CDC has done three updates since the beginning of the pandemic in its scenarios. The first was 0.26, the second was 0.65, this is the third one which is age banded.

This a nice chart of relative risk, I posted it in the OV thread.

0.09 over 80+ is a bit of an inference. But it seems reasonable based on the same study that the CDC bases it's numbers on. The CDC data says 70+ but if you read the print under the table, it doesn't include over 80 because the CDC and the study assumes that the 80+ CFR is the same as the IFR (there aren't missed cases).

I think you're looking at the incorrectly. We would only have direct evidence of the antibodies for that long because we've only been in the pandemic for that long. It's not evidence that there's no protection after that point.

Current Best Estimate, it's the same data I just posted. If you adjust for population, you get somewhere near 0.8 percent.

0-19 years: 0.00003 20-49 years: 0.0002 50-69 years: 0.005 70+ years: 0.054 **This doesn't include people 80+ The CFR is the thing you quoted there. The Infected Fatality Rate is derived from serology data since not every person infected gets a test. If you adjust for population percentage in those age bands, you get somewhere around 0.8 percent in the population as a whole. The 0.26% was from an early estimate in the pandemic planning scenarios on the CDC site that has since been updated twice.

This is a good thread on herd immunity.

Meh. It seems that most scientists are operating under the premise that herd immunity is a real thing with this infection and with hopefully vaccine(s) coming reasonably soon. Seasonal coronavirus infection from the other cornaviruses isn't evidence that herd immunity is unattainable. Hardly anyone gets severe disease from them and they spread in the winter and then go away again. This virus has been very stable despite some typical mutations and could easily become endemic like the other coronaviruses where it produces mild or asymptomatic disease every winter. It would be really unusual if the virus kept producing severe disease in people as a whole in subsequent infections.

Hospitalized per capita is 30 to 40 percent worse than the US now (~37k in the US)

The ifr is more like 0.5 to 1 percent. Its closer to 1 to 2 million if left unmitigated.

Unfortunately there's no wall between the young and the old. Some, especially the poor, live in multigenerational households and cannot distant much from their parents and their grandparents. The poor essential workers have really taken it on the chin, and the socio economics is why we see that black folks are dying at about double the rate to white.

It has nothing to do with stupidity..its inhumanity.

It was inhuman. Theres people here including yourself who get off on this. Its ****ing gross.

Wtf is wrong with people? Why are you posting here?

Cross reactive t cells are not a myth. Its just being characterized in way thats incorrect. I already posted some links to one of the researchers involved in these studies. They may offer some protection from severe disease but they don't prevent infection or change the herd immunity threshold.

I havent seen any evidence of this. Anti mask is associated with anti science and anti vax type thinking. Public health folks, research, and the majority of scientists are suggesting mask use. The preponderance of evidence is that they are effective at slowing down transmission. I agree on the not magic thing. Its amazing thats it october and this is still being politicized. It's ****ing exasperating and people's lives are on the line.

I dont agree with the premise. I understand opportunity cost but people who are wearing masks are also more likely careful and follow other public health guidance. The people who are not wearing masks are more likely to not be following other public health guidance.

Mental health issues/stress are quite high right now. That in of itself would cause productivity loss.

It does in Cape Cod. Warmer than normal temperatures and below normal snow = lots of bare ground in places that don't retain snow well anyway.

The researchers who saw that were specifically concerned about its effect on vaccine trials. They've also been adamant that they don't know what it means. Cross reactive T cells could lead to less mild disease, could mean nothing, or could actually make thing worse. Cross reactive T cells were then weaponized by the right who then act as if the herd immunity threshold is 20% because 50% were immune.