← Back to context

Comment by llamaimperative

2 years ago

Who was claiming 3.4%?

Here's a study from March 2020: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7118348/

> Adjusting for delay from confirmation to death, we estimated case and infection fatality ratios (CFR, IFR) for coronavirus disease (COVID-19) on the Diamond Princess ship as 2.6% (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.89–6.7) and 1.3% (95% CI: 0.38–3.6), respectively. Comparing deaths on board with expected deaths based on naive CFR estimates from China, we estimated CFR and IFR in China to be 1.2% (95% CI: 0.3–2.7) and 0.6% (95% CI: 0.2–1.3), respectively.

Please provide specific, contemporaneous examples of the 3.4% estimate and evidence of it being "taken as gospel" and "driving the actual policy."

5 comments

llamaimperative

Reply
delichon  2 years ago

> Who was claiming 3.4%?

https://www.instagram.com/thejrecompanion/reel/DCxS6R9SiZM/

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/03/trump-and-the-coronavirus-...

  • javagram  2 years ago

    The fact check page you provided seems clear that as early as March 5, 2020 (when the fact check was published) experts believed and were stating publicly that the IFR was not 3.4%:

    > A Feb. 28 editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine, co-authored by Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, took the position that the mortality rate may well fall dramatically. It said if one assumed that there were several times as many people who had the disease with minimal or no symptoms as the number of reported cases, the mortality rate may be considerably less than 1%. That would suggest “the overall clinical consequences of Covid-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza,” the editorial said.

    There are many similar lines.