[hcknwscommenter]

Because no demographic has been demonstrated to have a 99.99% survival rate?

[jwlake]

Source? 0-4 and 5-17 are definitely that high. The 18-45 demo is different, but there's a lot more heterogeneity in that population as well.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm

[hcknwscommenter]

I cannot fathom how your link could possibly support your contention that 0-4 and 5-17 are "definitely" a 99.99% survival rate (IFR of 0.01% or 1 fatality out of every 10,000 infections). I suspect you are misreading the table? Care to elaborate?

[elcritch]

Taking the data from the linked table for say 35-44 year olds is 1,798 deaths out of ~43 million population bracket, excluding influenza cases. That’s a 99.9956% survival rate. Taking all covid-19 and influenza it’s still a 99.9903% survival rate.

[lostdog]

Nope, you're not even close to calculating the survival rate correctly. The population of ~43 million is the entire population, not the set of people who were infected.

[elcritch]

Schucks, you’re right, I didn’t read the fine print on the CDC site. Still it’s not as far off as that sort of error would seem to indicate.

According to this Sep 2020 article on reason.com (1) they quote CDC numbers of a 99.98 survival rate (0.02% IFR) for 20-to-49-year-olds. Or a 99.997% survival rate (0.003 IFR) percent among people 19 or less.

1: https://www.google.com/amp/s/reason.com/2020/09/29/the-lates...

[lostdog]

Glad you took another look!

[rednerrus]

How about this one: https://www.nber.org/papers/w27597.pdf?

[rimliu]

I think in Italy they had 100% for 10-19 bracket.

[em500]

In the Netherlands it's 100% for the 0-14 bracket. 1 out of of the 6500 deaths so far was younger than 25 (he was in the 15-19 bracket).