INFECTION FATALITY RATE OF SARS-COV-2 INFECTION IN A GERMAN COMMUNITY WITH A SUPER-SPREADING EVENT

At on indoor event where people kissed other people on the lips the rate of infection was 40%.

hmmmm

To be fair Angoose they have had some of the key players on.

What did you make of his comments on his study and Covid in general?

Attached*

1. Infection fatality  rate was 0.2% to 0.36%

The study says in the conclusions: "Based on the estimated percentage of infected people in this population, the IFR was estimated to be 0.36% [0.29%; 0.45%]" I assume you got the 0.2 from the misquoting interviewer?

2. Viral load when first infected effects how severe disease is.

Is the widespread assumption, but not fact and shouldn't be presented as such (Streeck also made sure to point this out)

3. Only 14% of people in same household as someone who had Covid 19 caught it.

In a two-person household cluster, the estimated risk for the second infection increased from
15.53% to 43.59% [25.26%; 64.60%]; in a three-person household cluster the estimated risk
for the second and third persons increased from 15.53% to 35.71% [19.57%; 55.60%] each,
and in a four-person household cluster the estimated risk for the second, third and fourth
persons increased from 15.53% to 18.33% [9.67%; 28.74%] each. For household clusters with
at least one infected child (< 18 years), the estimated per-person risk for the other person to
be infected in three-person household clusters increased from 15.53% to 66.67% [21.83%,
100.00%] and in four-person household clusters from 15.53% to 33.33% [9.02%; 71.60%].

page 10

4. At on indoor event where people kissed other people on the lips the rate of infection was 40%.

carneval is not necessarily indoors. There's lots of smooching though and for the shagging people usually end up indoors. Again, this is an assumption from Streeck and his colleagues, as he makes sure to point out in the video (it's not mentioned in the study as far as I can tell) and should not be presented as fact.

5. No one transmitted it out of schools even after area was highly infected.

Where does it say this in either the published study manuscript or the video?


on a sidenote: What a gorgeous stallion that interviewer is. Facial structure of a Greek God.

I did know he's been in AI research for the better part of a decade, yes. Occasionally I think the forum account is operated by a bot he programmed.

Joined: 13 Dec 06
| Topic/replies: 226,566 | Blogger: edy's blog
1. Infection fatality  rate was 0.2% to 0.36%

The study says in the conclusions: "Based on the estimated percentage of infected people in this population, the IFR was estimated to be 0.36% [0.29%; 0.45%]" I assume you got the 0.2 from the misquoting interviewer?

^

Stated in the video the 0.036% is too high due to the fact 3% of area was known to be infected but only 2% of the sample was infected. Thats how he got the low end number.


2. Viral load when first infected effects how severe disease is.

Is the widespread assumption, but not fact and shouldn't be presented as such (Streeck also made sure to point this out)

^

Indeed but it is an important observation to share.

3. Only 14% of people in same household as someone who had Covid 19 caught it.

In a two-person household cluster, the estimated risk for the second infection increased from
15.53% to 43.59% [25.26%; 64.60%]; in a three-person household cluster the estimated risk
for the second and third persons increased from 15.53% to 35.71% [19.57%; 55.60%] each,
and in a four-person household cluster the estimated risk for the second, third and fourth
persons increased from 15.53% to 18.33% [9.67%; 28.74%] each. For household clusters with
at least one infected child (< 18 years), the estimated per-person risk for the other person to
be infected in three-person household clusters increased from 15.53% to 66.67% [21.83%,
100.00%] and in four-person household clusters from 15.53% to 33.33% [9.02%; 71.60%].

page 10

^

Correct. Again watch the film for explanation.


4. At on indoor event where people kissed other people on the lips the rate of infection was 40%.

carneval is not necessarily indoors. There's lots of smooching though and for the shagging people usually end up indoors. Again, this is an assumption from Streeck and his colleagues, as he makes sure to point out in the video (it's not mentioned in the study as far as I can tell) and should not be presented as fact.

^

Observation made in the video.

5. No one transmitted it out of schools even after area was highly infected.

Where does it say this in either the published study manuscript or the video?

19.40 he said if the schools had been the big transmitter we would have seen much more....
It is again an observation.


......


What do you make of the general findings of the paper Edy?
To me I find them quite positive.

I don't think it's really positive or negative. It's mostly expected stuff (though the fatality rate is higher than I personally would've thought).

As for the schools bit: He doesn't say at any time that no-one transmitted it out of school.

Good stuff Jolly.

Of course it depends on the age.

If enough young people get it that have a far lower IFR then they will shield the old as herd immunity builds.

There is still no evidence (other than assumptions from similar pathogens) that infection confers long term immunity.

If you wipe out vulnerable in first wave ifr will drop too...

Number 1 in Europe

Euro Champions 2020 after all