FabSwingers.com > Forums > Virus > Estimate of infection fatality risk (IFR) in a study in Geneva
Estimate of infection fatality risk (IFR) in a study in Geneva
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By *evernman OP Man
over a year ago
Shrewsbury |
From a recent scientific paper:
Of the 286 reported deaths caused by SARS-CoV-2, the youngest person to die was 31 years old. Infected individuals younger than 50 years experienced statistically similar IFRs (range 0.00032-0.0016%), which increases to 0.14% (95% CrI 0.096-0.19) for those 50-64 years old to 5.6% (95% CrI 4.3-7.4) for those 65 years and older (supplement). After accounting for demography and age-specific seroprevalence, we estimate a population-wide IFR of 0.64% (95% CrI 0.38-0.98).
Our results are subject to two notable limitations. Among the 65+ age group that died of COVID-19 within Geneva, 50% were reported among residents of assisted care facilities, where around 0.8% of the Geneva population resides. While the serosurvey protocol did not explicitly exclude these individuals, they are likely to have been under-represented. This would lead to an overestimation of the IFR in the 65+ age group if seroprevalence in this institutionalized population was higher than in the general population (supplement). Further, our IFR estimates are based on current evidence regarding post-infection antibody kinetics, which may differ between severe and mild infections. If mild infections have significantly lower and short-lived antibody responses, our estimates of IFR may be biased upwards. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"From a recent scientific paper:
Of the 286 reported deaths caused by SARS-CoV-2, the youngest person to die was 31 years old. Infected individuals younger than 50 years experienced statistically similar IFRs (range 0.00032-0.0016%), which increases to 0.14% (95% CrI 0.096-0.19) for those 50-64 years old to 5.6% (95% CrI 4.3-7.4) for those 65 years and older (supplement). After accounting for demography and age-specific seroprevalence, we estimate a population-wide IFR of 0.64% (95% CrI 0.38-0.98).
Our results are subject to two notable limitations. Among the 65+ age group that died of COVID-19 within Geneva, 50% were reported among residents of assisted care facilities, where around 0.8% of the Geneva population resides. While the serosurvey protocol did not explicitly exclude these individuals, they are likely to have been under-represented. This would lead to an overestimation of the IFR in the 65+ age group if seroprevalence in this institutionalized population was higher than in the general population (supplement). Further, our IFR estimates are based on current evidence regarding post-infection antibody kinetics, which may differ between severe and mild infections. If mild infections have significantly lower and short-lived antibody responses, our estimates of IFR may be biased upwards."
Could you elaborate upon that please
I'm not sure I understand it  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"From a recent scientific paper:
Of the 286 reported deaths caused by SARS-CoV-2, the youngest person to die was 31 years old. Infected individuals younger than 50 years experienced statistically similar IFRs (range 0.00032-0.0016%), which increases to 0.14% (95% CrI 0.096-0.19) for those 50-64 years old to 5.6% (95% CrI 4.3-7.4) for those 65 years and older (supplement). After accounting for demography and age-specific seroprevalence, we estimate a population-wide IFR of 0.64% (95% CrI 0.38-0.98).
Our results are subject to two notable limitations. Among the 65+ age group that died of COVID-19 within Geneva, 50% were reported among residents of assisted care facilities, where around 0.8% of the Geneva population resides. While the serosurvey protocol did not explicitly exclude these individuals, they are likely to have been under-represented. This would lead to an overestimation of the IFR in the 65+ age group if seroprevalence in this institutionalized population was higher than in the general population (supplement). Further, our IFR estimates are based on current evidence regarding post-infection antibody kinetics, which may differ between severe and mild infections. If mild infections have significantly lower and short-lived antibody responses, our estimates of IFR may be biased upwards.
Could you elaborate upon that please
I'm not sure I understand it "
That emoji snuck in. Wasnt meant to be there |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oggoneMan
over a year ago
Derry |
"From a recent scientific paper:
Of the 286 reported deaths caused by SARS-CoV-2, the youngest person to die was 31 years old. Infected individuals younger than 50 years experienced statistically similar IFRs (range 0.00032-0.0016%), which increases to 0.14% (95% CrI 0.096-0.19) for those 50-64 years old to 5.6% (95% CrI 4.3-7.4) for those 65 years and older (supplement). After accounting for demography and age-specific seroprevalence, we estimate a population-wide IFR of 0.64% (95% CrI 0.38-0.98).
Our results are subject to two notable limitations. Among the 65+ age group that died of COVID-19 within Geneva, 50% were reported among residents of assisted care facilities, where around 0.8% of the Geneva population resides. While the serosurvey protocol did not explicitly exclude these individuals, they are likely to have been under-represented. This would lead to an overestimation of the IFR in the 65+ age group if seroprevalence in this institutionalized population was higher than in the general population (supplement). Further, our IFR estimates are based on current evidence regarding post-infection antibody kinetics, which may differ between severe and mild infections. If mild infections have significantly lower and short-lived antibody responses, our estimates of IFR may be biased upwards.
Could you elaborate upon that please
I'm not sure I understand it "
The older you are, the higher the risk of fatality. The very high % of 65+ fatalities is probably affected by the fact that they live in care homes together.
Their stats may also be affected by people that will die after they recover from Covid but suffer from impaired organ function. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Survival of the fittest then, just like nature intended."
Or gross incompetence bordering on neglect in forcing some care homes to take some confirmed covid positive residents when said care homes were clear at that point and had no ppe..
The policy of emptying the hospitals may have been necessary given what they thought was coming but to not have tested all those who were sent back to care homes is shameful..
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oggoneMan
over a year ago
Derry |
"Survival of the fittest then, just like nature intended.
Or gross incompetence bordering on neglect in forcing some care homes to take some confirmed covid positive residents when said care homes were clear at that point and had no ppe..
The policy of emptying the hospitals may have been necessary given what they thought was coming but to not have tested all those who were sent back to care homes is shameful..
"
To state its the survival of the fittest is misleading, and not worth rebutting. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Survival of the fittest then, just like nature intended.
Or gross incompetence bordering on neglect in forcing some care homes to take some confirmed covid positive residents when said care homes were clear at that point and had no ppe..
The policy of emptying the hospitals may have been necessary given what they thought was coming but to not have tested all those who were sent back to care homes is shameful..
To state its the survival of the fittest is misleading, and not worth rebutting. "
It's a pretty callous comment lacking in empathy I agree..
Seems to be that for some a bit of collateral damage is acceptable if that's what's needed to get on with their own lives..
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
The facts are simple
The IFR is very low similar to flu
The reality is that Covid 19, almost exclusively, is a disease that affects the elderly – especially those with other health conditions. In many cases these were the elderly in nursing homes where cycled in and out of hospital for stabilisation before being returned to their nursing homes. Back in early April, to free up as much hospital space as possible, the care home beds were being filled up with elderly COVID positive patients. Because of the crisis they were not sent back to hospital when they then deteriorated. We have just been harvesting the elderly who are normally kept alive by this merry go round.
Huge amounts of collateral damage from the lockdown are killing (and will continue to kill in the oncoming recession) thousands more people. Ultimately more people are likely to be killed from the effects of the lockdown than from the disease itself. Somehow this is acceptable to people.
Many here will no doubt think that it is impossible to put a value on a human life, even to attempt to balance money versus health.
Those people are clearly unaware that we do this all the time. It is why NICE – the UK’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence – was established in 2000. It is what all healthcare systems are forced to do. No country can afford to throw unlimited resources at healthcare. We all must decide what we can, and cannot, afford to do. Tough decisions to make, but essential.
These decisions are taken regularly in respect of which expensive drugs will be funded. I suggest that you Google for 'How NICE measures value for money in relation to public health interventions'. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Survival of the fittest then, just like nature intended.
Or gross incompetence bordering on neglect in forcing some care homes to take some confirmed covid positive residents when said care homes were clear at that point and had no ppe..
The policy of emptying the hospitals may have been necessary given what they thought was coming but to not have tested all those who were sent back to care homes is shameful..
"
I didn’t realise Switzerland did the same as the UK in sending people back to care homes. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Survival of the fittest then, just like nature intended.
Or gross incompetence bordering on neglect in forcing some care homes to take some confirmed covid positive residents when said care homes were clear at that point and had no ppe..
The policy of emptying the hospitals may have been necessary given what they thought was coming but to not have tested all those who were sent back to care homes is shameful..
To state its the survival of the fittest is misleading, and not worth rebutting. "
Evolution is
Survival of that which survives to pass on genetic code
Survival of the fittest is only one form of natural selection
Another is survival of the most caring or nurturing
Another is survival of the having alot of offspring
Survival of the most callous may not evolutionary be a successful strategy?
Currently in humanity the most callous tribes and doctrine "third Reich " struggle to take over and are often dramatically reduced
Survival of altruism is equally as quotable as the short sighted sotf evolutionary strategy
But I'd suggest both disease and humanity are both vastly more complex than the nazi sound bite wanting only the absolute fittest (not necessarily the most fit to pass on genetic code) to live
I'll re iterate it's a nazi sound bite
But gosh dont some love simple slogans
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *yn drwgMan
over a year ago
Camarthen |
"Survival of the fittest then, just like nature intended.
Or gross incompetence bordering on neglect in forcing some care homes to take some confirmed covid positive residents when said care homes were clear at that point and had no ppe..
The policy of emptying the hospitals may have been necessary given what they thought was coming but to not have tested all those who were sent back to care homes is shameful..
"
So what would you have done differently? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Survival of the fittest then, just like nature intended.
Or gross incompetence bordering on neglect in forcing some care homes to take some confirmed covid positive residents when said care homes were clear at that point and had no ppe..
The policy of emptying the hospitals may have been necessary given what they thought was coming but to not have tested all those who were sent back to care homes is shameful..
To state its the survival of the fittest is misleading, and not worth rebutting.
Evolution is
Survival of that which survives to pass on genetic code
Survival of the fittest is only one form of natural selection
Another is survival of the most caring or nurturing
Another is survival of the having alot of offspring
Survival of the most callous may not evolutionary be a successful strategy?
Currently in humanity the most callous tribes and doctrine "third Reich " struggle to take over and are often dramatically reduced
Survival of altruism is equally as quotable as the short sighted sotf evolutionary strategy
But I'd suggest both disease and humanity are both vastly more complex than the nazi sound bite wanting only the absolute fittest (not necessarily the most fit to pass on genetic code) to live
I'll re iterate it's a nazi sound bite
But gosh dont some love simple slogans
"
It's actually from Charles Darwin but don't let that spoil your day  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Survival of the fittest then, just like nature intended.
Or gross incompetence bordering on neglect in forcing some care homes to take some confirmed covid positive residents when said care homes were clear at that point and had no ppe..
The policy of emptying the hospitals may have been necessary given what they thought was coming but to not have tested all those who were sent back to care homes is shameful..
So what would you have done differently?"
Not put those who were covid positive in places not equipped with PPE to look after them..
Fact is we did not have the capacity to test all in hospital so the best place for them would have been there as they were in for various reasons initially..
Moving those out of the icu wards to other places such as hotels until the nightingales came on stream where they would have been less risk to care homes..
It was all a bit knee jerk and not thought through.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Survival of the fittest then, just like nature intended.
Or gross incompetence bordering on neglect in forcing some care homes to take some confirmed covid positive residents when said care homes were clear at that point and had no ppe..
The policy of emptying the hospitals may have been necessary given what they thought was coming but to not have tested all those who were sent back to care homes is shameful..
To state its the survival of the fittest is misleading, and not worth rebutting.
Evolution is
Survival of that which survives to pass on genetic code
Survival of the fittest is only one form of natural selection
Another is survival of the most caring or nurturing
Another is survival of the having alot of offspring
Survival of the most callous may not evolutionary be a successful strategy?
Currently in humanity the most callous tribes and doctrine "third Reich " struggle to take over and are often dramatically reduced
Survival of altruism is equally as quotable as the short sighted sotf evolutionary strategy
But I'd suggest both disease and humanity are both vastly more complex than the nazi sound bite wanting only the absolute fittest (not necessarily the most fit to pass on genetic code) to live
I'll re iterate it's a nazi sound bite
But gosh dont some love simple slogans
It's actually from Charles Darwin but don't let that spoil your day "
You're trying to tell ME about the intricacies of "origin of species "
Natural selection he mentioned and one of the many selection methods can indeed be Male strength
However I referred to the sound bite where a complex interplay of natural factors is distorted into a callous eugenic principle
Indeed Darwin began our evolutionary understanding
And the nazis twisted it
You're welcome   |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
A famous quote from Mahatma Gandhi springs to mind here: 'the true measure of any society can be found in how it treats its most vulnerable members'. I'm ashamed to say that our most vulnerable were abandoned and put at risk by emptying hospitals without testing first. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Survival of the fittest then, just like nature intended.
Or gross incompetence bordering on neglect in forcing some care homes to take some confirmed covid positive residents when said care homes were clear at that point and had no ppe..
The policy of emptying the hospitals may have been necessary given what they thought was coming but to not have tested all those who were sent back to care homes is shameful..
To state its the survival of the fittest is misleading, and not worth rebutting.
Evolution is
Survival of that which survives to pass on genetic code
Survival of the fittest is only one form of natural selection
Another is survival of the most caring or nurturing
Another is survival of the having alot of offspring
Survival of the most callous may not evolutionary be a successful strategy?
Currently in humanity the most callous tribes and doctrine "third Reich " struggle to take over and are often dramatically reduced
Survival of altruism is equally as quotable as the short sighted sotf evolutionary strategy
But I'd suggest both disease and humanity are both vastly more complex than the nazi sound bite wanting only the absolute fittest (not necessarily the most fit to pass on genetic code) to live
I'll re iterate it's a nazi sound bite
But gosh dont some love simple slogans
It's actually from Charles Darwin but don't let that spoil your day
You're trying to tell ME about the intricacies of "origin of species "
Natural selection he mentioned and one of the many selection methods can indeed be Male strength
However I referred to the sound bite where a complex interplay of natural factors is distorted into a callous eugenic principle
Indeed Darwin began our evolutionary understanding
And the nazis twisted it
You're welcome "
Words are what we make of them twisted minds twist words
Good night |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
