[burger]

With total deaths in New York passing 19,000, given a total population of New York of 19 million, the lower bound of the IFR in New York is 0.1%.  Of course, not all patients with COVID-19 who will eventually die have died yet (so that the numerator is likely higher than 19,000; New York is reporting several hundred COVID deaths a day), and it is unlikely that everyone in New York state has been infected (so the denominator is likely less than 19 million).

The question is how much higher is the numerator and how close to 19 million is the denominator?

For what it is worth, in New York City, the population is 8.4 million and there've been 10,000 deaths, so that pushes the lower bound of the IFR to .12%.

At a minimum, the actual NY/NYC IFR has to be at least triple that lower bound, right?  Otherwise over 1/3 of the city's population would have to be infected, and there would have to be little undercount in the deaths.  I would save 5x those estimates is a safer bet for a lower bound.

Fun with bad serology studies:

Implied IFR from the Stanford study in Santa Clara Co.: 0.12%

Implied IFR from the LA study: 0.19%

So, BC's post is reason #642 to be skeptical of those serology studies.

[burger]

With total deaths in New York passing 19,000, given a total population of New York of 19 million, the lower bound of the IFR in New York is 0.1%.  Of course, not all patients with COVID-19 who will eventually die have died yet (so that the numerator is likely higher than 19,000; New York is reporting several hundred COVID deaths a day), and it is unlikely that everyone in New York state has been infected (so the denominator is likely less than 19 million).

The question is how much higher is the numerator and how close to 19 million is the denominator?

For what it is worth, in New York City, the population is 8.4 million and there've been 10,000 deaths, so that pushes the lower bound of the IFR to .12%.

At a minimum, the actual NY/NYC IFR has to be at least triple that lower bound, right?  Otherwise over 1/3 of the city's population would have to be infected, and there would have to be little undercount in the deaths.  I would save 5x those estimates is a safer bet for a lower bound.

Fun with bad serology studies:

Implied IFR from the Stanford study in Santa Clara Co.: 0.12%

Implied IFR from the LA study: 0.19%

So, BC's post is reason #642 to be skeptical of those serology studies.