Read on Twitter
With guidance from this newly released CDC document, federal agencies are modeling the COVID pandemic using implausibly low fatality rate.
Their "best estimate" has a symptomatic CFR of 0.4%
Their worst case scenario has CFR — not IFR — of 1%
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html">https://www.cdc.gov/coronavir...
Their "best estimate" has a symptomatic CFR of 0.4%
Their worst case scenario has CFR — not IFR — of 1%
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html">https://www.cdc.gov/coronavir...
Their best estimate of the CFR for people over 65 is 1.3%, and the worst case scenario is 3.2%.
I& #39;d love to know how these estimates were obtained, given that they are being used for government planning and recommended to modelers everywhere.
h/t @RAVerBruggen, @AndreasShrugged
I& #39;d love to know how these estimates were obtained, given that they are being used for government planning and recommended to modelers everywhere.
h/t @RAVerBruggen, @AndreasShrugged
The more I think about it, the more this bothers me.
These numbers are so far outside of the scientific consensus that this strikes me as a devious and cynical effort to manipulate not only federal modeling but the broader scientific discourse.
These numbers are so far outside of the scientific consensus that this strikes me as a devious and cynical effort to manipulate not only federal modeling but the broader scientific discourse.
People are asking me what the IFR ranges ought to be. That& #39;s tricky and depends in part on the purpose of the models for which the parameters are intended.
That said, I& #39;d want to span the range of reasonable estimates, and I want a point estimate that in accord with such.
That said, I& #39;d want to span the range of reasonable estimates, and I want a point estimate that in accord with such.
The CDC estimates do not seem to be doing that.
Here& #39;s one reasonable (IMO) systematic review of IFR estimates.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.03.20089854v2
John">https://www.medrxiv.org/content/1... Ioannidis has lower ranges here https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.13.20101253v1.article-metrics,">https://www.medrxiv.org/content/1... but I don& #39;t find them credible; see https://twitter.com/GidMK/status/1262956011872280577">https://twitter.com/GidMK/sta...
Here& #39;s one reasonable (IMO) systematic review of IFR estimates.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.03.20089854v2
John">https://www.medrxiv.org/content/1... Ioannidis has lower ranges here https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.13.20101253v1.article-metrics,">https://www.medrxiv.org/content/1... but I don& #39;t find them credible; see https://twitter.com/GidMK/status/1262956011872280577">https://twitter.com/GidMK/sta...
Imperial College Report 23, released today, estimates IFR for all US states. Almost all of the CDC& #39;s parameter range falls well below the almost all of the probability mass in the Imperial estimates.
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/mrc-global-infectious-disease-analysis/covid-19/report-23-united-states/">https://www.imperial.ac.uk/mrc-globa...
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/mrc-global-infectious-disease-analysis/covid-19/report-23-united-states/">https://www.imperial.ac.uk/mrc-globa...
Update: fixed the decimal place for the CDC "best estimate":
CNN reports on the CDC& #39;s parameters.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/22/health/cdc-coronavirus-estimates-symptoms-deaths/index.html">https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/2...
https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/22/health/cdc-coronavirus-estimates-symptoms-deaths/index.html">https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/2...
