Yes, but everybody on the ship got first class health care, and 233 people are still ill (1.5 months later form most infections), including 15 in critical condition. We don’t know the age of those who are still ill or how many younger people will die if there will be no health care. Also, there will be disproprtionally small number of young people on that ship.
The study is relevant because it aims to control for the age distribution, but of course if data is biased you never know completely. That everybody got perfect health care should also apply to all age groups, shouldn’t it?
Sorry but I do not see where older people having higher fatality when medicine fails leads to bias in the diamond princess data that would fit what you asked for in the original post. Please explain.
I don’t talk about mortality of old people at all. I only suggest that the claim that “young people below 40 have almost zero mortality” could be false.
Based on the Diamond Princess data, the case fatality ratio was estimated be 1.9-2.3% for all age groups, and 14-18% for people aged 70 or older, and seemingly around 0.2% for people up to age 39 (https://cmmid.github.io/topics/covid19/severity/diamond_cruise_cfr_estimates.html?fbclid=IwAR12StTC_CnjEWf2nGkw0b9tqEuh6kZ_qeEMXetM_cAHoZW3E0-yAchk66A). The infection fatality rate was estimated to b about 50% of the case fatality rate. I assume this isolated-people data may be helpful.
DP Cruise didn’t have any fatalities under age 70, so not sure where you’re getting the under-29 number. Also since the population is older the case fatality was over-estimated. This study https://cmmid.github.io/topics/covid19/severity/diamond_cruise_cfr_estimates.html?fbclid=IwAR2jCOZcBGHYBWC_dqSzwvX7T7-DOpwm8L84qqW8k6QtKa05Inv35Pk3Ezs estimates adjusted CFR form DP cruise ship data (assuming treatment!) to be .5%, largely in agreement with other numbers I’d heard. Though the sample size is ridiculously small, so the error bounds are terrible.
Ok, thank you. I added the word “estimated” above, but now I guess I still misunderstood what they were reporting in table 2 then.
Yes, but everybody on the ship got first class health care, and 233 people are still ill (1.5 months later form most infections), including 15 in critical condition. We don’t know the age of those who are still ill or how many younger people will die if there will be no health care. Also, there will be disproprtionally small number of young people on that ship.
The study is relevant because it aims to control for the age distribution, but of course if data is biased you never know completely. That everybody got perfect health care should also apply to all age groups, shouldn’t it?
Yes, older people will also have higher mortality when medicine fails.
And: “We see people in their thirties with no medical history, images of lungs are terrifying”
Sorry but I do not see where older people having higher fatality when medicine fails leads to bias in the diamond princess data that would fit what you asked for in the original post. Please explain.
I don’t talk about mortality of old people at all. I only suggest that the claim that “young people below 40 have almost zero mortality” could be false.
I would edit this to reflect the comments below, but somehow my words get deleted after typing.