is this paper confusing case fatality rate with infection fatality rate?
www.healthdata.org/sites/default/files/files/research_articles/2020/COVID-forecasting-03252020_4.pdf says:
"[These models] generally suggest that given current estimates of the basic reproductive rate (the number of cases caused by each case in a susceptible population), 25% to 70% of the population will eventually become infected. Based on reported case-fatality rates, these projections imply that there would be millions of deaths in the United States due to COVID-19." (To be clear, the paper is not predicting millions of deaths; the paper is rejecting the models that this sentence refers to.)
But isn't this confusing the case-fatality rate (the % of deaths among all people with symptoms of the COVID-19 disease) with the infection fatality rate (the % of deaths among all people who have the virus, symptomatic or not)?
I'm relying on the definitions of CFR vs. IFR from several sources:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_fatality_rate "The IFR differs from the CFR in that it aims to estimate the fatality rate in all those with infection: the detected disease (cases) and those with an undetected disease (asymptomatic and not tested group)."
www.cebm.net/covid-19/global-covid-19-case-fatality-rates/ "The IFR estimates the fatality rate in all those with infection: the detected disease (cases) and those with an undetected disease (asymptomatic and not tested group)."
etc.
and there are several prominent figures arguing that the IFR for SARS-CoV-2 is considerably lower than the CFR, e.g. John Ioannidis, Professor of Epidemiology and Population Health at Stanford: nationalpost.com/opinion/munk-debates-were-making-high-stakes-covid-19-decisions-without-reliable-data
It seems we don't know if the IFR actually is that low. But isn't the paper mixing up IFR and CFR when they're two different things?
(0)Terms of Use Privacy policy Contact About Cancellation policy © freshhoot.com2025 All Rights reserved.