Hacker News Reader

Comment by kmm | Hacker News Reader

That's averaged over all ages. For people under 50, it's basically nil, on the order of 1 in 10,000.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.23.20160895v...

You are correct. Thanks for pointing it out.

Your reference is very good. It is still a pre-print, but the breakdown is very informative. It estimates the IFR (Table 4) for ages between 0-34 as 0.01% (1 in 10,000), increasing exponentially from there. The estimated IFR for the next age group, people between 34-54, is between 0.04% and 0.2% (1 in 2,500 to 1 in 500), one to two orders of magnitude greater. For people over 85, the IFR is 36.8% (~1 in 3).

Note that the population over 34 is about 50% of the total in the US.

I think people need to dial back a bit and mention that just because you didn't die from infection - doesn't mean you are 100% the way you were pre-infection.

I rarely see mentions too that just because the mortality rate is lower for younger/healthy people - why does that exclude them potentially transmitting it to older folk?

And also possibly getting the most sick you'll ever get in your life, with possible long term effects. Like how exactly does that sound like a reasonable risk to take so you can go to the gym?

I agree completely. It is very easy to dismiss the problem if you are young and you only look at your individual risk. But if you look at society as a whole, the problem is significantly more complicated.

Odd. I see mentions of that literally every time someone brings up the large differences in mortality by age.

It's possible that we mostly exist in different filter bubbles though.

Possibly.. but even this thread I was felt like there were more mentions to just purely stats of IFR by age group as if that was all that matters and they were very active in this thread.

It's good to know it's being brought up when people mention IFR of age groups as if that "proves" we shouldn't worry about it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com