No it isn't. If you are asking someone where they get numbers from them write some incorrect numbers in the pursuit of whatever agenda is not a good look.
As of Monday,
- 274,504 people tested
- 8,400 cases
- 81 deaths
- 0.96% CFR
> so CFR is very close to IFR
On what basis do you make that statement. It's clearly indefensible
> If you are asking someone where they get numbers from them write some incorrect numbers in the pursuit of whatever agenda is not a good look.
> As of Monday
> - 81 deaths
> - 0.96% CFR
I should say the same of you. Why are you posting numbers from 5 days ago? As of yesterday when I made that comment, Korea has 102 deaths and 1.16% CFR.
>> so CFR is very close to IFR
> On what basis do you make that statement. It's clearly indefensible
On the basis of the beginning of that same sentence, which you inexplicably did not quote.
> Where are you getting this 0.4% number from? Korea is testing extensively, so CFR is very close to IFR, and CFR is above 1%.
That's not how CFR works, and I was referring to this data [1] which showed folks under 30 with a CFR of 0%, 30-50 at 0.1% and 50-59 at 0.4%, and a total of around 0.69% at the time the data was published.
You were referring to data more than a week old, when the infected cases had neither time to recover nor time to die. The latest figure from yesterday is 1.16% of all cases according to JHU.
> That's not how CFR works
That is exactly how CFR works. If you test more people, C will be closer to I.
No because you don’t know how many of them will die. In your definition you know the R not the F. Look, I’m quoting the WHO report. You’re welcome to take it up with them.
As of Monday,
- 274,504 people tested
- 8,400 cases
- 81 deaths
- 0.96% CFR
> so CFR is very close to IFR
On what basis do you make that statement. It's clearly indefensible
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.businessinsider.com/coronav...