What is the true infection fatality rate of COVID-19,broken down by age and health status?This is a simple question for which the CDC should have a clear answer by now,accompanied by a readable chart–a chart showing everyone's demographic risk assessment so that we can better target our infection mitigation efforts.Yet it's the one thing our government hasn't done.Wonder why?
按年龄和健康状况分列的新型冠状病毒肺炎的真实感染死亡率是多少？这是一个简单的问题，疾病预防控制中心现在应该有一个明确的答案，并附有一个可读的图表--一个显示每个人的人口风险评估的图表，以便我们能够更好地针对我们的感染缓解工作。

Take a look at this chart(which I translated into English using Google Translate)prepared by the Economisch Statistische Berichten(ESB),a Dutch economics magazine,quantifying the infection fatality rate for the Dutch population based on age bracket.The data were calculated from an antibody test of 4,000 blood donors conducted by Dutch blood bank Sanquin to see how many have been infected for the purpose of donating blood plasma to those currently suffering from the virus.The data were presented to the Dutch House of Representatives in mid-April by the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment(RIVM).
看看这张由荷兰经济杂志《Economisch statistical sche Berichten》(ESB)编制的图表(用谷歌翻译翻译成了英文)，它根据年龄段对荷兰人口的感染死亡率进行了量化。这些数据是根据荷兰 Sanquin 血库对4000名献血者进行的抗体测试计算出来的，该测试旨在了解有多少人已经感染了艾滋病毒，以便为目前感染艾滋病毒的人提供血浆。四月中旬，国家公共卫生与环境研究所(RIVM)向荷兰众议院提交了这些数据。

Based on this serology test,they were able to determine that 3%of the population(at the time)were infected and were therefore able to divide the numerator of those who died of COVID-19 by the extrapolated denominator of those who were likely infected and break out the infection fatality rate by age group.
根据这一血清学检测，他们能够确定当时有3%的人口受到感染，因此能够用可能受到感染者的外推分母除以那些死于新型冠状病毒肺炎的人的分子，并按年龄组计算出感染死亡率。
Study this chart for a few minutes and take in all the data–from the asymptomatic/mildly symptomatic rates to the hospital and fatality rates divided by age.You have to get to the 50-59 age group just to reach a 0.1%fatality rate,the level often cited as the overall death rate for the seasonal flu.Those are all lower odds than an individual has of dying in a giving year of any cause and in the case of an average 50-year-old,five times lower.
研究这个图表几分钟，并采取所有的数据-从无症状/轻度症状的比率到医院和死亡率除以年龄。你必须到达50-59岁的年龄组，才能达到0.1%的死亡率，这个水平经常被引用为季节性流感的总体死亡率。这些死亡率都低于一个人在任何原因引起的捐赠年中死亡的概率，而对于一个平均50岁的人来说，这个概率要低5倍。

They didn't test kids under 20,but their fatality rate is likely near zero.
他们没有对20岁以下的孩子进行测试，但他们的死亡率可能接近于零。
While the Netherlands is an entirely different country,it has actually experienced a 30%higher death rate per capita than America.So the numbers are likely not any higher here for those under 70,especially because the macro serology tests showing a 0.2%fatality rate(but grossly distorted by the death rate of those over 80),as well as what we are seeing in prisons and ships in younger populations,seems to harmonize with this data.A brand-new study from France also shows very similar estimates of fatality rates,at least for those under 60.
尽管荷兰是一个完全不同的国家，但实际上它的人均死亡率比美国高出30%。因此，这里70岁以下的死亡人数可能不会更高，特别是因为宏观血清学测试显示0.2%的死亡率(但被80岁以上的死亡率严重扭曲)，以及我们在监狱和船上看到的年轻人口，似乎与这个数据相一致。来自法国的一项全新研究也显示了非常相似的死亡率估计，至少对60岁以下的人来说是如此。

If anything,those who are sicker tend to stay away from blood donation,so it could be that infection rate was even higher than this sample suggests,thereby driving down the fatality rate even lower.
如果有什么区别的话，那就是病情较重的人倾向于远离献血，所以可能感染率甚至比这个样本显示的还要高，从而降低了死亡率。
Moreover,several weeks later,another research group in the Netherlands did a second serology test that broke down even more groups and came up with almost identical results:
此外，几周后，荷兰的另一个研究小组进行了第二次血清学测试，将更多的小组分解，得出了几乎相同的结果:

As you can see,the death rate doesn't even climb above.1%until you reach over 70,with a steep and dangerous growth of risk over 75 and 80.However,it's important to remember that even those death rates might need to be cut in half for those outside nursing homes,given that half the deaths in most countries are in senior care facilities.
正如你所看到的，死亡率甚至不会上升到0.1%以上，直到你超过70岁，危险的风险急剧增长超过75和80。然而，重要的是要记住，即使这些死亡率可能需要削减一半的那些外养老院，因为在大多数国家的一半死亡是在养老院。
Why has our government not put out a similar chart?How many Americans even know that children have near-zero threat and anyone under 60 has next to no risk of dying from the virus?Even those between 60 and 69 are at much lower risk than anything the government has suggested and that the level of panic indicates.The World Health Organization wrongly pegged the overall death rate for all ages at 3.4%on average.This simple fact makes a world of difference both to our targeted response to the virus and also to the degree of panic that should and should not be infused into society so as not to keep people away from hospitals when they are experiencing other potentially dangerous medical conditions.
为什么我们的政府没有发布类似的图表？有多少美国人知道儿童几乎没有威胁，60岁以下的人几乎没有死于这种病毒的危险？即使是60岁到69岁之间的人，面临的风险也远低于政府建议的任何风险，而且恐慌程度表明了这一点。世界卫生组织错误地将所有年龄段的总体死亡率定为平均3.4%。这个简单的事实使我们对病毒的针对性反应以及应该和不应该向社会灌输的恐慌程度产生了天壤之别，这样，当人们正在经历其他潜在危险的医疗状况时，就不会让他们远离医院。

But even this chart doesn't tell the full story.The virus lopsidedly targets people with particular underlying conditions,such as heart disease and diabetes.It is simply criminal that,with the tens of billions of dollars in"emergency"funding,the CDC has not conducted or published the results of a survey of 20,000 or so Americans to determine the exact number of infections and the fatality rate broken down by each health and age status.To most Americans,based on what the government and media have been putting out,it's all the same and even babies will all die,as if there is a 50%fatality rate.Most people I know think their infants are in danger from COVID-19,even though the threat of flu and SIDS is much more pervasive in infants than that of coronavirus.
但即使是这张图表也不能说明全部情况。这种病毒偏向于针对有特殊潜在疾病的人群，如心脏病和糖尿病。有了数百亿美元的"紧急"资金，美国疾病控制与预防中心却没有对大约2万名美国人进行或公布一项调查的结果，以确定确切的感染人数以及按每种健康和年龄状况分列的死亡率，这简直是犯罪。对于大多数美国人来说，根据政府和媒体发布的消息，这些都是一样的，甚至连婴儿都会死去，就好像有50%的死亡率一样。我认识的大多数人认为他们的婴儿正处于新型冠状病毒肺炎的危险之中，尽管流感和婴儿猝死综合症的威胁在婴儿中比冠状病毒更为普遍。
Hence,the fatality rates from the Netherlands are likely much lower for healthy people.Remember,these fatalities rates are calculated by dividing the total deaths in that age group by the total extrapolated and estimated infections that have gone untested and unrecorded.But the numerator is lopsided,because almost all the actual deaths are among those with three or four very specific health problems.What is the fatality rate for a 70-year-old without those conditions,much less someone much younger?Clearly,a lot lower,and we need to know that data.
因此，来自荷兰的健康人的死亡率可能要低得多。记住，这些死亡率的计算方法是将该年龄组的总死亡人数除以推算出的总感染人数和未经测试和未记录的估计感染人数。但是分子是不平衡的，因为几乎所有的实际死亡都是那些有三到四个非常特殊的健康问题的人。没有这些疾病的70岁老人的死亡率是多少，更不用说更年轻的人了？很明显，要低得多，我们需要知道这些数据。

In most states,well over 90%of those who died of COVID-19 had serious underlying conditions.But it's even more than that.We now know that geography played a large role.54%of all U.S.deaths were in the 100 counties in or within 100 miles of NYC.
在大多数州，90%以上死于新型冠状病毒肺炎的人都有严重的潜在疾病。但事实远不止如此。我们现在知道，地理因素起了很大的作用。美国54%的死亡发生在纽约市100英里内的100个县。
Moreover,roughly half of all deaths outside New York were in nursing homes.So,if you actually took the numerator of COVID-19 deaths,which are calculated very liberally,and limited them to the risk of those outside the NYC area and outside nursing homes,what would the fatality rate be?Likely much lower,even for those with underlying conditions,much less those without them.
此外，在纽约以外的死亡人数中，大约有一半是在疗养院里。所以，如果你真的把新型冠状病毒肺炎死亡的分子----计算起来非常宽松----限制在纽约地区以外和疗养院以外的人的风险范围内，那么死亡率会是多少呢？可能会低得多，即使是那些有潜在疾病的人，更不用说那些没有潜在疾病的人。
Consequently,we destroyed our entire country and sacked the Constitution all for a very narrow and specific problem that required a precise and balanced approach.Yet two months into this mistake,our government won't even put out the simple math demonstrating this obvious point.As one commentator so aptly observed,"Homogenous intervention in the face of heterogenous risk is just cruelty passed off as equality."
因此，我们摧毁了我们的整个国家，为了一个非常狭隘和具体的问题而废除了《宪法》，这个问题需要一个精确和平衡的方法。然而，在这个错误发生两个月后，我们的政府甚至不会用简单的数学方法来证明这一明显的观点。正如一位评论家非常恰当地指出的那样，"在面对不同风险时进行同质干预，只不过是将残忍伪装成平等。"
Author:作者:Daniel Horowitz 丹尼尔·霍洛维茨

"在面对不同风险时进行同质干预，只不过是将残忍伪装成平等。"
？