Austrian Ski Village Study puts IFR at ~0.25%

2,526 Views | 19 Replies | Last: 5 yr ago by Aston94
Keegan99
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
This is in line with other studies and CDC estimates.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/06/25/highest-coronavirus-immunity-found-austrian-ski-resort/

Quote:


Almost half the people living in an Austrian ski resort that was a major centre of the European coronavirus outbreak now have immunity, according to a new study released on Thursday.

Scientists from Innsbruck Medical University found antibodies to the virus in 42.4 per cent of people in Ischgl.

It is one of the highest coronavirus infection rates yet discovered anywhere in the world. A similar study in Geneva found antibodies in just 10 per cent of the population, while in the Italian ski resort of Val Gardena, it was 27 per cent.

"We believe supers-preading events, such as those that took place in aprs-ski bars, made a significant contribution to the widespread spread," said Prof Dorothee von Laer, the leader of the Ischgl study.



Quote:


Packed apres-ski bars where people played drinking games in which they passed the same ping-pong ball from glass to glass are believed to have been the perfect environment for the virus to spread.

Yet despite the high infection rate, only nine Ischgl residents had to be hospitalised for the virus, and only two died meaning the fatality rate in the village was just 0.24 per cent.

Research for the new study took place in April, after the resort had been closed to tourists and placed under quarantine.

The rate of infection in the village was more than six times higher than previously thought 85 per cent of those found with antibodies had not previously been diagnosed and were unaware they had been infected,

"We assumed a high rate of undocumented cases before the start of the study and, as in other hotspots, it has now been confirmed," said Prof von Laer.

Many of those who were not previously diagnosed reported losing their sense of taste and smell, a common symptom of the virus.

Quote:


"What is particularly interesting about the results of the study in Ischgl is that the majority of people with antibodies were identified as corona cases only by the study. This underlines the importance of antibody studies," said Dr Peter Willeit, another of the study's authors.

The study found the infection rate was much lower among children, at 27 per cent. Almost none of the children showed any symptoms.

In all, 1,473 Ischgl residents took part in the study, accounting for 79 per cent of the village's population.

The scientists followed a rigorous procedure. Blood samples underwent at least two antibody tests, and in some cases were tested four times to eliminate false positives.


Old Buffalo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Doing the Lord's work.

Now we wait for the incoming doomsayers.

HotardAg07
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I would expect a population that biased younger and healthier at a ski lodge to have a lower measured IFR, since the IFR is so heavily dependent on age and comorbidities. This probably isn't the perfect representation of the population at large.

For overall populations, this was probably 0.5%-1.0% (depending on age distribution) in March-April and has potentially reduced since then due to improved treatment outcomes.
Aston94
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
HotardAg07 said:

I would expect a population that biased younger and healthier at a ski lodge to have a lower measured IFR, since the IFR is so heavily dependent on age and comorbidities. This probably isn't the perfect representation of the population at large.

For overall populations, this was probably 0.5%-1.0% (depending on age distribution) in March-April and has potentially reduced since then due to improved treatment outcomes.
The problem with your theory is that it didn't stay at the ski lodge. The whole city ended up with it, not just the younger healthier set at the ski lodge.
Knucklesammich
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I think his point is that if you live in an Alpine ski village that you are more likely to live a healthy lifestyle, especially if you are there during ski season.

It was an early theory in Germany as to why their fatality rate was so low initially.
Aston94
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Town demographics look very normal:

0-9 years 160
10-19 years 183
20-29 years 234
30-39 years 241
40-49 years 238
50-59 years 268
60-69 years 161
70-79 years 77
80+ years 55
aggiemike02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
HotardAg07 said:

I would expect a population that biased younger and healthier at a ski lodge to have a lower measured IFR, since the IFR is so heavily dependent on age and comorbidities. This probably isn't the perfect representation of the population at large.

For overall populations, this was probably 0.5%-1.0% (depending on age distribution) in March-April and has potentially reduced since then due to improved treatment outcomes.
I'd also add a problem to this theory, Bavaria takes great cultural pride in outdoor sports being for all ages. Not at all abnormal to have 50+ aged people comprise a large percentage of skiers all season long. This does not mean they are "healthy" just active and healthier than your average mid western American.
HotardAg07
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The region of Bergamo, Italy had a PFR (population fatality rate) of 0.58%. Obviously, that area biases older, so you would expect a higher IFR. Lombardy, Italy had a PFT of 0.26%.

NYC had a PFR of 0.21% and it biases more than 10 years younger, although their treatment of older populations was terrible.

But these are POPULATION fatality rates, which include everyone, not just those infected.

Therefore, it's fairly straightforward to conclude that the actual IFR is heavily dependent on age (like the flu), but is some multiples higher than the flu. According to the maker of the https://covid19-projections.com/ the IFR rate has been halved since March.
HotardAg07
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
aggiemike02 said:

HotardAg07 said:

I would expect a population that biased younger and healthier at a ski lodge to have a lower measured IFR, since the IFR is so heavily dependent on age and comorbidities. This probably isn't the perfect representation of the population at large.

For overall populations, this was probably 0.5%-1.0% (depending on age distribution) in March-April and has potentially reduced since then due to improved treatment outcomes.
I'd also add a problem to this theory, Bavaria takes great cultural pride in outdoor sports being for all ages. Not at all abnormal to have 50+ aged people comprise a large percentage of skiers all season long. This does not mean they are "healthy" just active and healthier than your average mid western American.
Yes, but 50 year olds are pulling down the IFR -- they are "young" when it comes to the coronavirus. It's the 80+ year olds who drive the average up above 1%.
CompEvoBio94
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Interesting case study. If there were 2 deaths and the point estimate of IFR was 0.24%, that means there were about 833 infected people (could be off a bit from rounding error of .24).

So, the upper range of the 95% confidence interval for IFR would be somewhere around 0.86% or 0.96% (depending on what method one uses to construct the confidence interval).

As several folks have pointed out IFR varies by demography, etc. But this also a small sample. which is certainly consistent with the 0.75% IFR that many epidemiologists are using a ballpark figure. Of course the outbreak was back in February. Hopefully the better therapies and treatments mean that we are now dealing with a lower IFR.
revvie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I live in Houston, Harris County. I dont care what the IFR is in Austria. Let's evaluate those numbers.
H.E. Pennypacker
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I assumed a .5% overall fatality rate on my previous posts back in March. That still looks like a reasonable estimate. However, the problem remains that even if it is that low, the troubling variable is what % of the overall population gets it. That's what has always been the real concern.

You're still looking at almost a million Covid related deaths if half of our national population is infected with it. We need to spread that out as much as possible.
Drip99
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Not much to add other than I wouldn't mind living in an Austrian ski village these days
Knucklesammich
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Not talking about age but overall health. It was something German doctors talked about early stage around fatality rates even among older patients.
Keegan99
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The Miami antibody study put IFR at 0.2%, as I recall.
oragator
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Every data point is a step towards understanding, things like this are good.

But how healthy was this population comparatively?
Were the younger folks disproportionately infected (it started at a bar and younger ski bums live in pretty tight quarters) or was it evenly spread?
Are their other demographics representative of the larger population?
Do we know how many got symptoms after the study?
Do we yet know how much antibody you need to be immune from another infection?
What was the hospitalization rate and was their care representative of what others would get?
What was the rate of transmission?


Like I said, I think everyone appreciates data points, but good or bad, that's what they are - on the flip side what happened in northern Italy it NY isn't wholly representative either.
Aston94
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Knucklesammich said:

Not talking about age but overall health. It was something German doctors talked about early stage around fatality rates even among older patients.
Why guess? There is no data either way on the "overall health" of the people in this Austrian town. Work with the factors you do know, don't guess at the ones you don't.

Assuming that some older lady who lives in a town where there is also skiing is therefor more healthy is a big leap. Now the fact that they live at a higher altitude and have stronger lungs because of it, I could see that being a factor, but not guessing either way.
Knucklesammich
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Because anytime Italy is brought into the argument it is: they're old, they smoke, their healthcare system sucks, their overall health isn't good.

When its NYC because its dense and they travel on subways and before we learned more, common surfaces in those areas.

Same on the gloomier side in the US: the South is full of morbidly obese, hypertensive diabetics who are going to fall over at the first hint of COVID.

Death rates in Florida are elevated because of their high elderly population.

I'm not saying any of these assumptions or questions are wrong, we ask them.

I think it is ok to ask if this one town with a population of 1,523 people built upon alpine activities (skiing, hiking, etc) might be healthier than the average not as active town.

I don't know but if you compared the overall health of that town with say Jarrel, TX population 1600 that you'd see a pretty stunning difference in overall health.

We talk constantly about protecting those with comorbidities, I think its fair to ask what the rate of those comorbidities.

Its a chart embedded in the site below, but go down about 3/4 of the way down and compare national differences in cause of death between Austria and the US. Its significant at a national level but its an assumption to think one of the main hub of Alpine areas in an already healthy country would maybe have a lower level of health issues when compared to others of the same age in the US?

edit to include link
http://www.healthdata.org/austria

Aston94
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Asking is fine. You didn't ask, you assumed.
Knucklesammich
How long do you want to ignore this user?
No I didn't, I stated that I thought the poster was referring to thoughts early stage around Germany's lower death rate even though it older patients being healthy enough to ski in the first place.

Ok I'll restate, jeopardy style as a question: Should we discuss whether the population of that alpine village in fact may be healthier irrespective of age than the average person as we mentioned early in the pandemic?

Your response was that I assumed, yet you came back to age when my original statement was to ask about health.

See it as you see it, I meant it as a clarification on what I thought was the point which was health not age.
Aston94
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG

Quote:

Should we discuss whether the population of that alpine village in fact may be healthier irrespective of age than the average person as we mentioned early in the pandemic?
Of course it should be discussed and questioned.

Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.