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

quote:

---

My point is you don’t even know what the definition of immunity is.

---

What?

quote:

---

Is the only person who is immune or who has beaten the disease show antibodies?

---

I don’t know. Like Matt Damon in the movie Contagion (which is supposed to be pretty scientifically accurate), I wouldn’t at all he surprised that there are some people who are completely immune despite never having the virus.

quote:

---

There is mounting evidence that’s not entirely true.

---

And I’ve even ACKNOWLEDGED TO YOU in another thread that I believe this is entirely possible.

But while that could have a major impact on the population level immunity (specifically to get to her immunity) and thus the overall mortality that has less to do with the IFR discussion regarding people who did not have that innate immunity.

quote:

---

They seeded all their most vulnerable High density populations (nursing homes) with 4,200 infected patients, and there are a lot of questions regarding their classification of deaths and “suspected deaths”

---

Well then. Since you say this:

quote:

---

The cited internal data. I trust they have facts that we don’t.

---

Then you should be relieved based in this WSJ article from today that cites the CDC:

Most Countries Fail to Capture Extent of Covid-19 Deaths

quote:

---

”We’re almost sure there’s undercounting, not overcounting” in the U.S., said Robert Anderson, chief of the mortality statistics branch at the CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics.

---

quote:

---

I’m 100% positive that if the cdc came out and said the IFR was 1% you would be saying that is the absolute truth. I

---

I cited a meta-analysis that put the IFR between 0.5% and 0.8% to justify my concerns with the CDC estimates. You know what I didn’t cite: a University of Washington estimate of symptomatic CFR (i.e., comparable to CDC’s 0.4%) of 1.3% and a Stanford University study (from the department of biology) that estimated the global IFR at 1.04%, both of which were released in the past couple of weeks. Although I would include them (like the Santa Clara study I’ve been so critical of) with the rest of the studies in the meta-analysis (if they meet the inclusion guidelines).

I based my views off of dozens of studies, instead of just 1 that fit my priors. In fact, I previously thought (before we had data) it would be around 1%, and I’ve adjusted downward as the multiple data sources suggest it’s lower.

So clearly you’re wrong since I could have used a single source that supported the 1% but chose to use multiple sources that support a lower IFR.