Citat:
Ursprungligen postat av
vadharjag
Jo kanske. Förmodligen är det, likt i New York, stor skillnad mellan olika områden. Nästan 28 % smittade i Bronx t ex. Där lär immuniteten hjälpa till att hålla nere R-talet rejält när det öppnar upp igen, men det gör det nog i hela staden, New York har nog sett det värsta även om många fler kommer smittas och avlida.
När det gäller IFR tror jag fortfarande att den kommer hamna en mycket bra bit under 1 %. Tyvärr har nog New York, precis som jag tror gäller oss, haft oproportionerligt stor smitta på äldreboenden och inom hemtjänst, vilket höjt IFR:en rejält.
I imagine we’ll see disproportionate levels of infection, too. NYC antibody testing and Lombardy antibody testing both showed this.
I could see it being 0.8% to 1.2%, maybe 1.3%. But I don’t see the evidence for it being lower — when adjusting for time to antibodies vs time to death, New York City antibody testing showed around a 1% IFR with official numbers.
Lombardy antibody study predicted a 1.29% IFR, which doesn’t take into account hospital collapse, but I found rather equal results when comparing antibody prevalence in Catalan hospital workers (11% in Barcelona, I cannot see it being lower amongst healthcare workers than the general population — but calculated from 11%) to a death toll there where deaths from elderly homes etc. are included, at 1.24%.
I also read an Iran antibody study that predicted 0.4% (if I remember correctly.) — but those were using official numbers and I suspect a massive undercount in regards to those. But the antibody evidence in places with substantial infection (enough that false-positives won’t skew ridiculously) seems to point to higher death tolls, but with the caveat that it may be the high rate of infection that has caused the IFR to rise through pressuring hospitals.