Quote Originally Posted by Green Husky Fan View Post
Well, one of us is referencing the CDC and the other is dividing two numbers off of worldometer. But somehow I'm an unscientific conspiracy theorist. Go figure.

The numbers presented in that table are the CDC's best estimate based on antibody testing done globally and the studies that they use to arrive at the numbers are fully referenced below that table on their site. As the table says, they continue to revise those numbers as more testing is done and new information comes available (all revisions have been lower so far btw).

The reality is that we really don't know how many infected there have been due to many people being asymptomatic and/or having mild symptoms and not going in to get tested. The more you test, the more infections you find. Iceland is the most tested country in the world (per capita) and has an estimated IFR of 0.3%, heavily skewed towards older people (Source: New England Journal of Medicine). If they were to test their entire population for antibodies, logic suggests that the IFR would drop even further. Even the pro lock-down crowd acknowledge this (as the CDC does on their website) but for some reason you totally choose to ignore this in your 3-6% IFR calculation.

Anyway, if citing the CDC and the NEJM makes me a conspiracy theorist, it's clear that we won't find much common ground in our discussion, so it's likely a good idea to just agree to disagree.
I acknowledged the issues around naively taking the reported infected and dead numbers in my original post. However, it is a silly thing to argue about in the first place, since finding a more exact number won't change much of anything.

We know it can be deadly and has killed a lot of people already, and we know it is can cause health problems in otherwise healthy people who have "recovered". We know that if we just let this burn through the entire population, there will be piles more deaths and a lot of people who suffer complications. We know that older people are more vulnerable, as are those with health conditions such as diabetes or heart conditions. People who fall into at least one risk category make up a pretty significant portion of the population. We know that the more community spread there is, the more at risk people will become infected and killed.

We really have only two options to handle this. One is to take measures to prevent the spread of the disease as the experts are recommending. The other is to be cruel or dismissive to our at risk population. Just let the vulnerable die. If they want to live, they can go live in solitary confinement for months on end because we can't be bothered to inconvenience ourselves. The reality is that we are all interconnected. With the way this spreads, we can't effectively protect the vulnerable without protecting everyone else.

It seems you're digging deep into IFR percentages to justify a stance that our response to managing this virus is overblown. The problem is, the science you're looking at doesn't support the conclusions you're trying to draw from it. You're looking at those IFR percentages and implying they mean we should have less restrictions, yet epidemiologists who have access to the same data do not draw those same conclusions.

We've both out of our depth on this. The difference is that I am aware of it. I know that doing a deep dive of the CDC website isn't going to make me an epidemiologist. I understand enough to know why they recommend what the do, whereas you understand enough that you think you know better than they do.