WHO Comments imply far lower IFR than previously claimed

-

An estimated 750M, 10% of world’s population have been infected by Covid-19, says WHO's Dr M Ryan


This implies far lower Infection Fatality Rate than previously claimed & potentially significant implications for many countries.



https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/covid-19-world-in-for-a-hell-of-a-ride-in-coming-months-dr-mike-ryan-says-1.4370626?mode=amp


While clearly this is only a "best guess" figure, we can still conduct a rough analysis, leading to an interesting conclusion:


10% of world population ~ 750M

Covid-19 deaths to date ~ 1M

Implied IFR = 1/750 = ~ 0.13%

(IFR = Infection Fatality Rate)


An IFR of ~0.13% is almost an order of magnitude lower than the ~1% values seen in much of the predictive modelling that has been used to guide policy, lockdown decisions etc. (E.g. ICL used 0.9% for UK in March - see 2 excerpts below).




-






Even for a rough estimate, this is a significant difference.

An order of magnitude reduction in IFR implies a similar reduction in predicted fatalities

For, e.g, UK & others, this means 10's rather than 100's of thousands of deaths.



ICL predicted several hundred thousand UK deaths in the "do nothing" scenario.

This did not happen.





UK total covid-19 fatalities to date are ~42k; indeed 10's & not 100's of thousands.

The same appears generally to be true for the higher fatality locations. Fatalities have been approximately an order of magnitude lower than predicted.

Responsible & fair to re-remind ourselves that the WHO surely meant this number as a rough estimate. However an order of magnitude difference is very large in this situation & adjusting that "10% infected" figure up or down somewhat would make little difference to the results.

Even more interesting is the potential implication of this for today & the future, especially for those locations that have already experience high fatalities (eg. UK)

Many in these locations believe that, unless strict measures are maintained, huge numbers of deaths will occur.

However, the WHO's own implied IFR & it's consequences would seem to support the hypothesis that, while further infections & deaths in these locations are possible (as with many viruses), in terms of the bigger picture the epidemic may well have largely run its course.





[Analysis, opinions and errors my own.]

@RuminatorDan







Popular posts from this blog

Czech Republic & other European Higher Fatality Countries

-
Image
CZECH REPUBLIC & OTHER EUROPEAN HIGHER FATALITY COUNTRIES Signs of Czech Rep deaths slowing? I wish them well. Interesting, yet again, that the cumulative total is so similar to other hard hit locations, which are all around 10x lower than generally used predictions... The point is not to use these data for some ugly competition. Rather, these data and their differences - or similarities - can reveal very important information about #SARSCoV2 . For example, UK deaths were predicted to reach ~7500 per Million (=~500k people, without measures). However, if the hypotheses that led to such predictions were true, & such totals have only been averted by lockdown, then one would expect large variations between countries (as exact details & timing of lockdown and other measures would be critical). High sensitivity to timing would be the case if "high lethality+all susceptible+lockdowns work" hypotheses were true. Yet all the high fatality locations have quite similar tota...
Read more

England & Wales Autumn Covid deaths show regional heterogeneity. London, in particular, is interesting

-
Image
England & Wales Autumn Covid deaths show regional heterogeneity. London, in particular, is interesting [27Nov2020_1] London's more severe & earlier spring growth may well explain why it has, to date, seen less of an autumn rise. [Charts normalised by year to date non-Covid deaths.] The generally held belief is that only a small percentage of people have so far been infected by SARS-CoV-2 & that the vast majority remain susceptible to infection - hence all the measures taken. There are, however, reasons & evidence suggesting that this is not the case. If the vast majority of people were still susceptible, one would expect growth everywhere. However, autumn rises have varied greatly across regions. London especially, given its nature (crowding etc) would be expected to show aggressive growth, as it did in spring.  It has not. The past provides a clue as to the reason. London's spring rise in Covid deaths was the most aggressive: not only faster & larger than o...
Read more

False Positives mean R can never reach zero and will remain around 1 indefinitely

-
Image
False Positives mean R can never reach zero and will remain around 1 indefinitely If prevalence was low enough that most positives were false, cases would appear to stop falling & settle at a low level (+noise). R would rise from below 1 to around 1 & jump around at that level. Indefinitely. E.g. below. % of positive tests declines; then settles at a low but non zero level. If R is determined by the changes in this number (slope of graph) it would be <1 during decline, then rise & settle around 1 but with significant variation due to noise etc being larger at low levels. @RuminatorDan
Read more