At 23:18 19/03/2020, Harry Feldman wrote:
>I'm still confused about what they're using for denominators? The
>CSC document gives rates like '10-27%' for the oldest age group,
>which isn't terribly informative. If they are using 'confirmed
>cases' for a denominator, then for one thing, shouldn't they be able
>to pin it down closer than a range of 17 points? And for another,
>won't that result in an unrealistically high rate?
It would seem almost inevitable that the 'denominators' around will
all, or nearly all, be considerable under-estimates of the number of
people infected (not the least relating to how many, or few, tests
have been undertaken) leading, as you say, to what are presumably
appreciable over-estimates of 'mortality' (Case Fatality Rate).
From what I can make out, Korea is the probably the place where they
have had the most intensive (large) testing program, and their CFR is
just under 1%.
Kind Regards,
John
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dr John Whittington, Voice: +44 (0) 1296 730225
Mediscience Services Fax: +44 (0) 1296 738893
Twyford Manor, Twyford, E-mail: [log in to unmask]
Buckingham MK18 4EL, UK
----------------------------------------------------------------
******************************************************
Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your
message will go only to the sender of this message.
If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's
'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically
to [log in to unmask]
Disclaimer: The messages sent to this list are the views of the sender and cannot be assumed to be representative of the range of views held by subscribers to the Radical Statistics Group. To find out more about Radical Statistics and its aims and activities and read current and past issues of our newsletter you are invited to visit our web site www.radstats.org.uk.
*******************************************************
|