02-28-2020, 01:12 PM
(02-28-2020, 11:20 AM)burger Wrote: The authors of the NEJM article include the head of CDC and the head of a major NIH division, and they have made clear that they are not permitted to interact with the public without approval from politicians. So, there is reason for major skepticism about that article (not saying they're lying, but they are cherry picking).Fauci is probably the single most well-known/significant infectious disease person alive, he is 79 and at the end of his career, and I find it hard to believe he'd make any statements, as a result of political pressure, that he viewed as inaccurate, slanted, or misleading, even by omission. Due to production lead-time, this article was probably finalized before the administration allegedly acted this week to muzzle his public statements. (I only say allegedly because it has been denied by Fauci's Institute at NIH, but I certainly find the allegation believable.) Anyway, my point in quoting the article was simply to provide some support for what BC and I have been posting, which is that if the number of asymptomatic and mild cases is significant, the currently cited case fatality rates are too high. And the "more robust" analysis you cite says that "All CFR estimates should be viewed cautiously at the current time as the sensitivity of surveillance of both deaths and cases in mainland China is unclear." And their point estimates for CFR based on all infections are under 1%, albeit with wide confidence intervals.