I'm not so sure that's clear yet. Just going on blunt metrics, the virus has already killed 0.1% of NYC's entire population, probably on pace to hit 0.2% if the down-curve even only roughly matches the up-curve. So it would have had to have spread to 50% of the population for the fatality rate there to be only 0.4%, which seems unlikely (there's only a smattering of antibody data around the world so far but nothing has found spread even close to 50%, especially at the level of a metropolis)
If people on here are so keen on calculating CFR and not R0 to estimate how bad the virus is, they should also take into account logistic and demographic problems of every area. Hence, the CFR of New York might be so bad because of terrible medical infrastructure in the first place, and additionally patients who are not willing to go to the hospital because of fear of bankrupting themselves. Certainly not saying this virus is "just like the flu" because it is not and it is killing a lot of people. But epidemiologically this is much more complex than all of us are able to understand as non-epidemiologists.
Even w/o those non-positives, the death count for NYC is in the neighborhood of 8,000[0] (and still rising at a decent clip) for a population of 8 million. That's 0.1%.
You can also look at individual counties[1] and you get some variation but the same picture. Ex. 2.7k deaths in Queens for a population of 2.3mil, 0.4k deaths in Richmond for a population of 0.4mil
(That's 0.1% for the entire population and not even nearing the maximum yet, so obviously the IFR's and CFR's will be even higher.)
also while this may sound insensitive 0.1% of the population is not the same as X percent of old and sick people
it is not like the virus takes down everyone equally. The overwhelming majority of those affected are both old and fairly sick already.
Again I am not implying anything other than there is clear skew and the measures should target those that are at risk. It makes no sense to create generic, unworkable rules where we lock up all 20 year olds that have no risk whatsoever. It is not realistic.
There’s also the problem that healthy young adults are generally very stupid when it comes to assessing risk. Sure, they’re probably only at mild risk of days of debilitating hospitalization, but they’re also going to be fairly careless about people at greater risk around them.
Locking everyone up gives us a chance to gather data, prepare treatments, and find a way to protect those at risk. Letting spreaders run around carelessly will not make anything but the economy better.
This is massively informative. If anything pregnant women take a lot more precautions than other people. They are most likely under representing the overall infection rate.
