Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

not sure what the news is here
my records have calculated 1.5% to 1.8% since last summer for the US

That's what all of the "official" records are saying, but those records do not account for people who had it and never got tested.

That's what all of the "official" records are saying, but those records do not account for people who had it and never got tested.

they also don't account for the folks that died from auto accidents and other causes, such as the flu, that just happened to test positive for COVID

Absolutely.  The large number of microchips in all electronics these days, was already comprehended into the global forecasts, in most cases several years ago.  I have to plan my demand 18-24 months out, and I have to send prelim signals for capacity planning purposes up to 36 months out.

But when entire factories in China shut down for months and months at a time, there's no way for the supply chain to keep up with the demand, even when they knew about that demand years ago.

And normally, even when there's an unexpected surge in demand, the Chinese subtier component factories can generally spin up new lines within 6-9 months to handle it, as long as it's incremental demand on an existing design and not an entirely new one.  Because normally their labor supply can instantaneously expand to meet new demand. and then it's just a matter of additional tooling and some training.  But that's not happening right now, for reasons that no one over there is allowed to explain.

Years ago, in fact it will be 20 years ago now I worked at Applied Materials outside Austin in my first post-college job.  I was a test engineer for the machines we were sending out.  I did that job for about 6 months before the internet bubble popped and all us new hires were out of a job.  I don't remember much but one thing that sticks out is that all intel machines had to be the same model etc even if they had newer, more capable models out.  Everybody groaned when we got an intel machine in because it was always the oldest model and thus the hardest to calibrate.  I wish things would have worked out, it was a great gig.  

Study here if you want to read it: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/eci.13554

I have some concerns... It reads like "we're going to exclude anything we don't like, criticize the few studies we included in the review which had a higher IFR, and use the absolute highest count of worldwide infections--hence we find a low IFR".

I also find 0.15% to not exactly pass the sniff test.

In the US we have had over 31M confirmed cases, and 569K deaths, for a CFR of 1.8%.

Using just the number of deaths here, to get an IFR of 0.15% with 569K deaths would require almost 380M infections in the US, which is 50M more infections than we have residents...

again this isnt news to me

it may even be higher

Nobody has ever said you could not get it more than once. Especially you screwballs here.

Good point...

Of course, seroprevalence studies (which they used to estimate infection rate) wouldn't respond any differently to double-infections than they do to single-infections. 

A 0.15% IFR, based on the way they are able to test seroprevalence, would require 380M people to have antibodies--and we don't have 380M people.

(BTW repeat infection appears to be extremely rare...)

OK Im guilty of missing a decimal point

there is no way its .15%

1.5% is what I assumed we were talking about

sorry I had a senior moment

I was wondering, 320... Thought you might have dipped into the 420 lol...

But yeah, 1.5% is also too high. That's the case fatality rate, which only takes into account confirmed cases. We know there is a large number of asymptomatic cases that were never confirmed, and/or mild cases which were never tested.

The IFR [infection fatality rate] forces us to try to estimate those asymptomatic and untested positive cases. People think it could be somewhere between 3-5x lower than the 1.8% that we have as the CFR.