• FluTrackers.com Inc. does not provide medical advice. Information on this web site is collected from various internet resources, and the FluTrackers board of directors makes no warranty to the safety, efficacy, correctness or completeness of the information posted on this site by any author or poster. The information collated here is for instructional and/or discussion purposes only and is NOT intended to diagnose or treat any disease, illness, or other medical condition. Every individual reader or poster should seek advice from their personal physician/healthcare practitioner before considering or using any interventions that are discussed on this website. By continuing to access this website you agree to consult your personal physican before using any interventions posted on this website, and you agree to hold harmless FluTrackers.com Inc., the board of directors, the members, and all authors and posters for any effects from use of any medication, supplement, vitamin or other substance, device, intervention, etc. mentioned in posts on this website, or other internet venues referenced in posts on this website.
  • We are not asking for any donations. Do not donate to any entity who says they are raising funds for us.

sCFR=0.045%

gsgs

Registered User
http://knol.google.com/k/marc-lipsi...r/16?collectionId=28qm4w0q65e4w.1&position=1#

we estimated
sCFR of 0.045% (95% credible interval CI 0.020%-0.090%),
sCIR of 0.222% (0.105%-0.425%),
and sCHR of 1.37% (0.68%-2.52%).
Using self-reported ILI, we obtained estimates approximately 6-9x lower. sCFR was highest in the 18-64 age group, and sCIR and sCHR highest in the 18-64 or 0-4 age group depending on the approach.

0.045% : sCFR = symptomatic case-fatality ratio
0.222% : sCIR = ratio of symptomatic cases that required ICU=intensive care unit ,
1.370% : sCHR = ratio of symptomatic cases that required hospitalization

Conclusions

These estimates suggest that an autumn-winter pandemic wave of pH1N1 with comparable severity per case could lead to a number of deaths in the range from considerably below that associated with seasonal influenza to slightly higher, but with greatest impact in young children and non-elderly adults. These estimates of impact depend on assumptions about total incidence of infection and would be larger if incidence of symptomatic infection were higher or shifted toward adults, if viral virulence increased, or if suboptimal treatment resulted from stress on the health care system; numbers would decrease if the proportion infected or symptomatic were lower.
 
Re: sCFR=0.045%

I haven't read the whole paper yet.
Do they examine deaths attributed to other causes,
but which would not have happened without ****** ?

In winter it could be a bit worse, but apparantly not so much

0.045 sCFR would give 0.03 CFR with the 33% asymptomatic
reported in Peru

7.5 times lower for self-reported ILI with a 30% positive-rate
would give 0.013

10% infected in OZ 200 dead gives also 0.01%

with the ******-deaths attributed to other causes, my current
estimate is 0.02% in 1st world countries, 5 times lower than seasonal
flu, but killing more younger people and causing more disease,
pain,hospital-stress,absenteism. But not so "deadly".
 
Re: sCFR=0.045%

I looked a bit more at the paper and I'm not happy with it.

It's lengthy, unclear.

Apparantly they didn't look at all at deaths attributed to other causes
but contributed by ******. I couldn't find them even mentioning it.
These form the bulk of seasonal deaths !

Then they just list 2 approaches, one with reported cases,
hospitalizations and one with self reported ILI , given sCFRs
of 0.045 or 0.006 but as far as I can see they don't really
examine which of these is more likely.

The CAR remains unclear. They mention 7.5% in NZ, but
recently we had another article saying 11%-25%.


so, I'm down with my own estimate of the sCFR to 0.01%
 
Re: sCFR=0.045%

Thanks for looking more closely at the paper.

I know it's early in this pandemic, but I wonder if a hundred years from now if flubies researching 2009 will have any better understanding than we do about 1918.

Well, maybe we'll have more accurate reporting as time goes on...
 
Re: sCFR=0.045%

they should make a claim at intrade about the CFR

in 2 years we will have the deaths-statistics, then just
compare the seasons.
I'd bet that this one gives fewer deaths than last season
in the 20 weeks of highest ILI


typically they use the number of estimated deaths to measure the severety
of a flu-season.
But that's not so good, how old are those who die, had they
multable causes of deaths coming together, how many were
sick and how bad ?
Some may die years,decades later from this year's flu

Make a new system to measure all this
 
Re: sCFR=0.045%

You haven't posted those Intrades in a long time. Are they doing them for the pandemic?
 
Re: sCFR=0.045%

When you want to compare numbers of seasonal flu and the current swineflu, it seems not enough to compare the number of deaths, or CFR.

To get a picture, I feel one should also compare:

- median age (of hospitalised, deaths)

- number of hospitalisations

- number of patients in ICU

- % of deaths/ hospital patients/ICU cases with underlying diseases
 
Back
Top Bottom