re: Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) ***W.H.O. DECLARES A GLOBAL PANDEMIC***

quote:

---

As soon as there is an antibody study you just harp on the false positive problem without even giving any time to the possibility that the antibody studies aren’t detecting every patient who has encountered this virus.

---

Ummm that’s for a very specific reason: base rates. When base rates are low, specificity is the bigger concern as the positive predictive value is lower. But as base rates rise then sensitivity becomes more of a concern and the negative predictive value lowers.

quote:

---

You aren’t considering the fact that nursing homes and long term care facilities have been hit way harder than the general population.

---

I am consider this, which is why I’ve been focusing so much on the NYC data because their deaths skew YOUNGER (as it is a younger and healthier city than than the US overall) than the flu plus they have detailed demographic data AND their base rates are highest in the country (if not world).

Anyways, as an example, in 2017-2018, the deadliest flu season in decades with 61,099 deaths and a a 0.14% symptomatic case fatality rate, 83.3% of the deaths were from those 65 and older (80% is about average anyways). Currently in NYC, 74% of the deaths are from those 65 and older.

In other words, while it is still much deadlier the older one gets, in NYC at least, it’s actually skewing younger than the FLU, and that’s with fewer infections among the youngest population (compared to FLU at least, regardless of the reason).

And they’re looking at an IFR around 0.8% to 1% based on the antibody data (which is more reliable because of the base rates although I would like more details and some follow-up prevalence data).

quote:

---

I’m not surprised at all that you can’t figure out how they arrived at that number.

---

BECAUSE THEY DIDN’T PROVIDE ANY SUPPORTING DATA OR DOCUMENTATION.

And apparently I’m not the only one. And note while this is a Buzzfeed article, it was a Nation Review writer (conservative publication) who cited it because he was confused about the basis as well.

The CDC Released New Death Rate Estimates For The Coronavirus. Many Scientists Say They’re Too Low.

quote:

---

Researchers also lambasted the CDC’s lack of transparency about its data sources. The eight-page document disclosed almost nothing about its numbers, citing only internal data and a preprint — a study that has not been peer-reviewed — led by scientists in Iran.

---

That bolder portion is the strangest part to me. Why are CDC estimates based on a study from Iranian scientists?