Thread by @DrEricDing

📍Ummm no @FoxNews—you reported an inaccurate IFR that is 100x lower than CDC website. Fox News confused a proportion for a %.

Sidenote: Infection Fatality Ratio is lower than Case Fatality Ratio (CFR) because IFR is for all infected while CFR is for test diagnosed. #COVID19 🧵

2) The CDC website lists the IFR table of scenarios assuming different R0 values. Again these are proportions not %. Many studies have reported higher R0 than 2.5, which is conservative. cdc.gov/coronavirus/20…

3) The Oxford MRC group indeed reported an average R0 of 3.87, which means the higher values of IFR in tables 3 and 4 are more likely than the low ball 5th scenario. (R0 average from page 6) imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial…

4) Thus to be clear, the IFR from scenarios 3/4 of R0=4 are closer to reality than the low balled scenario 5 of R0 of 2.5.

Note, This issue is not Fox News’s fault per se—their error was mistaking the percentages. It’s the difference of mistaking 5-10% as 0.5-0.1% in age 70+

5) also, Dr Mike Ryan at WHO explains recently the IFR overall is 0.6% (0.006 proportion), which makes it 50x-500x worse than the 2009 flu pandemic! Don’t take my word—listen to his very concerned words in the video & the math below. #COVID19

6) Also, note that IFR is *not set in stone* as a constant. It can change and differ place to place.

➡️A new study says New Orleans had a #COVID19 IFR of whopping 1.63%! IFR can differ based on healthcare system, demographics, risk factors (eg obesity, diabetes, air pollution)

7) “IFR not set in stone” is another way to say THERE IS NO FATE BUT WHAT WE MAKE. ~John Connor, T2.