Thanks! Good to see someone who can reason their way through the data.
I don’t agree with the guesses on current seroprevalence, do agree that they aren’t wildly off, your math looks OK, and the conclusion based on those exposed whose immune systems are preventing an actual disease process give numbers that make sense.
Good job!
I’m basing my numbers on those who are sick enough to seek medical attention. My numbers are pretty grim, but they are only counting those who are already in trouble. That’s why I can look at something near 9% and not freak out. It’s more like 9% of 10% of the population at large.
I like your number better!
And as a bonus, unlike way too many flubros, you aren’t using the entire population of the known universe as the denominator! (Just wow). Your numbers based on people with immune responses are much a much better representative of reality.
Thanks again!
But it's still a little complicated. The 2+ month old survey data was scientifically valid, 2 months ago, when applied to tracked cases 2 months ago. The "guess" is that it can be matched to current tracking of cases, and there are several reasons why that is pure speculation rather than science.
A scientifically valid conclusion based on current case tracking must be adjusted by a current seroprevalence survey. It is very likely the current survey would yield significantly different adjustment factors, because the current population has a much larger proportion of people already infected than 2 or 3 months ago.
My intuition tells me that the ultimate IFR ratios will be significantly lower than those shown in my example calculations. Of course NO ONE should depend on MY intuition, that's why we must update the data with current scientific surveys.
The really bad news is the lack of action on the part of the CDC. It appears to me that our deep state politicians are NOT interested is solving this problem.