AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
Why would you reduce the numbers? I'm not as sure about the calculation for the percentage of hospitalizations, but the naive CFR (Case Fatality Rate) in general has doubled since then. In other words, the percentages in the "Case-fatalities" column should be larger, possibly by 2x.
The numbers I was quoting were hospitalization ratios. It's 14-20% amongst 20-44 year olds. Those are naive hospitalization ratios. I'm just saying that given the ACTUAL number of infections, especially in that age group, the actual hospitalization ratio is likely quite a bit lower. If you search the internet (I did yesterday), you'll find that the asx group is heavily weighted towards the lower age groups (not surprisingly).
But yes, on the other hand, since hospitalization also lags diagnosis, even the CDC's data is likely a bit optimistic on hospitalization of the cohort they looked at (I don't know the time lag between the cases they looked at and when they published the study - you can check the link I provided). But I'd guess the asx or mildly sx denominator would be quite a bit larger than the CDC's N=705 in reality.
But in any case, even the likely optimistic 2% hospitalization is brutal for 20 to 44 year olds. That's really amazingly severe.
Last edited: