Delta has peaked in the South

@sh76 said
Before I answer directly, let me ask you this:

Do you understand the difference between probably and possibly?

@eladar said
Why not? Philosophically, I stay clear of man made stuff.

@eladar said
Possibility means it is possible that I can be hit by a bolt of lightning on a cloudless day.

Probability uses a number to describe how likely it is that the possible event will happen.

I am likely more educated than you on the subject.

@joe-shmo said
"IFR seems to be between .4% and .5% (probably closer to .4) in the gen pop. For a healthy person in the 40s, it's somewhat lower than that, but not an order of magnitude lower. Keep in mind that the over-all IFR includes all the healthy children, whose IFR is a rounding error from zero."

can you cite the IFR ( which you claim is just less than 0.4% for 40's ) accounting for the massive numbers of missed cases previously known citing the study published last week?

@sh76 said
You keep conflating likely, probably and possibly. If you do understand statistics, I wonder why you're putting on such an effort to hide that.

That a person isn't 50.1% "likely" to die of something doesn't mean the possibility of death is miniscule and should be ignored.

@sh76

"CFR is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned (except as a mechanism by which to guesstimate IFR)."

Its not irrelevant, it is the statistical measurement in which we base our estimation of the IFR. The IFR is what is estimated here.

"(it's a logarithmic increase in risk as you advance in age and bad health )"

Its an exponential increase in risk as you increase in age. Its not logarithmic, your confused.

@joe-shmo said
@sh76

"(it's a logarithmic increase in risk as you advance in age and bad health )"

Its an exponential increase in risk as you increase in age. Its not logarithmic, your confused.

@sh76 said
I said "somewhat" not "just."

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2918-0

See Fig. 2

This puts the IFR of my age group right around .1% but the CI ranges up over .2.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2918-0

@eladar said
Slight difference there.

Not that most of the people around here know the difference.

@joe-shmo said
I hope I 'm correct in identifying your sarcasm!

Slight if you consider completely inverted "slight"!

@joe-shmo said

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2918-0

This article was posted in Nov 2020.

It is now basically irrelevant in light of the study published in a few weeks ago. They based it on seroprevalence studies prior to submission in Nov of 2020.

I asked can you find an updated IFR bases on the study published last week?

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/08/210826111744.htm

@joe-shmo said
@sh76

"CFR is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned (except as a mechanism by which to guesstimate IFR)."

Its not irrelevant, it is the statistical measurement in which we base our estimation of the IFR. The IFR is what is estimated here.

"(it's a logarithmic increase in risk as you advance in age and bad health )"

Its an exponential increase in risk as you increase in age. Its not logarithmic, your confused.

@sh76 said
If 1 in 3 Americans have had COVID, that's about 110m cases. Given over 600k deaths, that's an IFR over .5%

I think 1-in-3 is likely an underestimate, but I don't see how that affects my analysis.

@eladar said
So what is the estimated probability of death for a healthy 50 year old, no medical issues and vitamin d level 84 ng/ml.

Thing is , you have no clue, but give your best guess.

@sh76 said
~.15%