Hacker News Reader

Comment by anoncake | Hacker News Reader

The IFR of Covid is closer to 0.5% than to 1%. That is something we are perfectly used to: For example, Australia had a death rate of 0.63% in 2019.[1] Of course having anyone die isn't "fine". But the death of less than 1% of the population is something we can tolerate, not some kind of disaster of unprecedented magnitude worth a lockdown causing damage we can't even foresee yet.

[1] https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/population/deaths-a...

View on HN

CDC's survival percentage based on the IFR per age group

0-19----99.997%

20-49---99.98%

50-69---99.5%

70+-----94.6%

That number looks accurate, but I'm not sure it's the only thing to look at.

First, deaths aren't the only measure. For every death there are many more people that just barely survive after a hospital stay, and data suggests a significant amount of those people will have long-term problems.

Second, if the hospitals are overloaded by such people (even if most of them survive) then the IFR of Covid can rise higher than 0.5-1%.

> First, deaths aren't the only measure. For every death there are many more people that just barely survive after a hospital stay, and data suggests a significant amount of those people will have long-term problems.

...where long-term means a few months at most. People do recover, just uncomfortably slowly.

> Second, if the hospitals are overloaded by such people (even if most of them survive) then the IFR of Covid can rise higher than 0.5-1%.

I'm not so sure about that. These IFR estimates haven't changed much since spring, when half of those hospitalized died.[1,2,3] Our treatment methods have improved since then. If the estimates reflected the IFR with treatment, they would be lower today. So I think an IFR of 0.5-1% is actually the worst case.

Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find any source explicitly comparing death rates with vs without treatment.

[1] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3...

[2] https://in.dental-tribune.com/news/new-estimate-by-the-cdc-b...

[3] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32234121/

No, the current IFR of about 1% is the best case with current treatment options. It was much higher earlier on.

No the current IFR is significantly less than 1%.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scena...

Those are not real IFRs, those are estimates used for planning scenarios. Also, they don't include anyone over the age of 80.

> The parameters in the scenarios:

> Are estimates intended to support public health preparedness and planning.

> Are not predictions of the expected effects of COVID-19.

> Do not reflect the impact of any behavioral changes, social distancing, or other interventions.

> Those are not real IFRs, those are estimates used for planning scenarios.

Estimates are the realest thing we have.

> Do not reflect the impact of any behavioral changes, social distancing, or other interventions.

How would these things affect the IFR negatively?

Do you have source for that? I think you're confusing the IFR and the CFR.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com