Read on Twitter
Forcing myself look at intl COVID metrics every week or so. I usually donât look at deaths, but... this isnât what I was expecting.
Look for the Philippines.
Look for the Philippines.
All of these are unlike the others.
Thatâs a huge part of SOME of the variation, especially when I hear that more than half of confirmed deaths in places like the US and UK came out of elder care homes. And Iâve been wondering for months what this means for places like the Philippines, where itâs almost unheard of https://twitter.com/wanderer_jasnah/status/1299277543854485506
Can only speak to what Iâve seen, but elderly live with their families unless they basically need to be moved to a hospital. And depending on socio-econ status, maybe not after then. Thereâs virtually no âassisted livingâ places like we parked my grandparents in at a certain age. https://twitter.com/wanderer_jasnah/status/1299277829310492673
But when I run what I presume this looks like as an epidemiological model in my head, you get a lot of early non-random deaths with particularly vulnerable pops in the US and UK because it hits where theyâre all concentrated. But randomly distrubuted in places like Philippines
Such that on a long enough timeline without a vaccine, CFRâs all converge. Whatâs odd to me is that places with the highest confirmed cases generally also have the most abnormally high CFRâs, whereas the smaller p/c outbreaks are much closer to what we think the IFR is.
It should be opposite: higher N = better statistical sample with presumedly more random distrubution, so the CFR and whatever real IFR is should be converging. A crazy high CFR should mean you just missed a lot of ppl you didnât test.
PH seems to catch more infections.
PH seems to catch more infections.
