Citat:
Ursprungligen postat av
ittepa
Props for a well made post. I do however think you are simplifying it and it's a little bit problematic to base the whole calculation on r0 (this is not constant) and the snapshot of ~750 test results.
I am not thinking we are at 30% yet, just I meant we are closer to 30% than to 3%. I don't have good evidence to support this however (just like everyone else) so I will leave this for now.
Side note:
As high as 50% of corona tests could be showing a false negative. More likely it's around 35%.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.02.11.20021493v2
from this article (very interesting read):
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/01/well/live/coronavirus-symptoms-tests-false-negative.html
750 is a snapshot. But these are scientifically valuable after statistical sampling. The R0 isn’t consistent to a day, but at this current vector it’s around a week and that hasn’t changed too drastically.
Corona tests also test false-positive. It seems to vary based on the tests used as to the fail-rate of them, but this is a factor I assume the FHM has accounted for in this.
I think we were around 3% when this study was taken. Epidemiologists wildly overestimated infections in the H1N1 Swine Flu and I’d tend towards the layperson overestimating as well. Somebody brought up a case of a patient who recovered 8 days after symptoms onset. This would be covered by a 15 day span in the test assuming the lowest incubation interval. 2 incubation days + 8 hospitalized + 5 days afterwards.
My argument is that a lot of infections would still be active at this time in March with a minority number having recovered. The exponential growth factor would increase the number of new active infections while keeping the number of potential recovered lower on the exponential curve.
I can see 2.5-3% infected in Stockholm at the time of study and 2% in Sweden at that time. This will of course have doubled by now, and the deaths we’re seeing today are from a 1% of infected, as I previously showed.
