The journalists at BuzzFeed News are proud to bring you trustworthy and relevant reporting about the coronavirus. To help keep this news free,<\/i> become a member<\/i><\/a> and sign up for our newsletter,<\/i> Outbreak Today<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n New CDC estimates of coronavirus<\/a> death rates look suspiciously low and present almost no data to back them up, say public health experts who are concerned that the agency is buckling under political pressure to restart the economy.<\/p>\n A week ago, as the US began to reopen, the CDC put out five scenarios<\/a> for how the coronavirus crisis could play out across the country. This \u201cpandemic planning\u201d document is being used throughout the federal government and is meant to help public officials make decisions about when and how to reopen, according to the CDC.<\/p>\n In addition to providing various rates of hospitalizations and infections, the CDC gave new estimates of the total fatality rate of the virus, ranging from about 0.1% (its least deadly scenario) to 0.8% (its deadliest scenario). The agency also cited a \u201cbest estimate\u201d of 0.26%.<\/p>\n While no one yet knows the coronavirus\u2019s actual death rate, the agency\u2019s range of possible rates seemed alarmingly low to many epidemiologists, compared to existing data in places both inside and outside the US. For instance, estimates of New York City\u2019s total death rate, 0.86% to 0.93%, are even higher than the CDC\u2019s worst-case scenario. Estimates from countries like Spain and Italy are also higher, ranging from 1.1% to 1.3%.<\/p>\n Researchers also lambasted the CDC\u2019s lack of transparency about its data sources. The eight-page document disclosed almost nothing about its numbers, citing only internal data and a preprint \u2014 a study that has not been peer-reviewed \u2014 led by scientists in Iran.<\/p>\n \u201cThis is terrible. This is way too optimistic,\u201d Andrew Noymer, an associate professor of population health at the University of California at Irvine, told BuzzFeed News, adding, \u201cWith this document, the CDC is determined to smash its credibility with the public health community of which it is supposedly a leader.\u201d<\/p>\n The CDC did not return multiple requests for comment.<\/p>\n Nevertheless, some observers have seized on the CDC\u2019s estimates to bolster their view that the virus isn\u2019t that deadly, and that it is safe to reopen the economy. Do you work at the CDC? You can use a non-work device to reach us at stephanie.lee@buzzfeed.com and dan.vergano@buzzfeed.com, or visit tips.buzzfeed.com.<\/b>\n <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n On Tuesday, Stanford University epidemiologist John Ioannidis cited the CDC numbers in an op-ed for the Boston Review<\/a>, saying \u201cit is clear that the numbers are much lower than first feared.\u201d Ioannidis, who is famous for starting a movement to root out shoddy science, has recently found himself on the receiving end of criticism for his role in a controversial antibody study<\/a> in Northern California. That study produced low estimates for the coronavirus\u2019s death rate, which Ioannidis then cited in the media, including on Fox News, to say that it was in the same ballpark as the flu.<\/p>\n The CDC numbers also quickly gained notice from others who share<\/a> Ioannidis\u2019s view<\/a> that the virus is not deadly enough to justify economic lockdowns, including right-leaning commentators<\/a> and media outlets<\/a>. \u201cSPEAK OUT. GO OUT,\u201d tweeted<\/a> Cliff Maloney, president of the libertarian student organization Young Americans for Liberty, sharing the CDC\u2019s new fatality numbers.<\/p>\n Out of the 1.68 million Americans diagnosed with COVID-19, almost 100,000, or about 5.9%<\/a>, are confirmed to have died from it to date. But most scientists agree that the true rate of deaths for all infected people, also known as the infection fatality rate, is likely to be lower when undiagnosed cases are added to the denominator. Many people who get sick with the disease show mild or no symptoms, and a lack of diagnostic testing in the US also means that infections are undercounted, though no one knows yet by how much. (That\u2019s not the only factor throwing a wrench into the equation: Deaths, too, are believed to be undercounted<\/a>.)<\/p>\n To Amesh Adalja, an infectious disease researcher at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, the CDC\u2019s best-guess death rate seemed right around where he would expect.<\/p>\n \u201cI don\u2019t have a problem with that number,\u201d he said, adding, \u201cThe more we look, the more we\u2019re finding patients that have antibodies, that don\u2019t recall illness, and people who have very mild illness and are not getting tested.\u201d<\/p>\n The coronavirus is not equally deadly to everyone everywhere. Infection fatality rates vary with many factors, from location to population density to age to healthcare availability.<\/p>\n But five other experts told BuzzFeed News they were perplexed that the CDC\u2019s highest estimated fatality rate is lower than estimates for some of the world\u2019s hardest-hit areas.<\/p>\n In the CDC\u2019s deadliest scenario, the infection fatality rate for the virus is about 0.8%. But in New York City, an estimated 0.86%<\/a> to 0.93%<\/a> of all people who got sick died, according to two preliminary analyses of available data, including a recent antibody survey that provided the best estimate yet of the total number of residents who have been infected. Those figures would put the death rate in the city \u2014 hit with the most lethal outbreak in the US, with at least 16,600 COVID-19 deaths to date \u2014 beyond the CDC\u2019s worst-case scenario.<\/p>\n \u201cSurely the worst-case scenario should at least be New York for the whole country,\u201d said Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz, an epidemiologist at the University of Wollongong in Australia, who has been tracking infection fatality rates in New York City and elsewhere.<\/p>\n And Natalie Dean, a University of Florida biostatistician, said, \u201cThe point is that you [should] capture a range of scenarios based on what data we have available right now. With the data we have available right now, we can\u2019t rule out something higher. A worst-case scenario needs to be a real worst-case scenario.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Protesters display fake body bags in front of the White House.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n Other estimates in hot spots outside the US are also higher than the agency\u2019s deadliest estimate. In Spain, a massive antibody survey<\/a> of more than 60,000 people put its overall fatality rate at around 1.1% to 1.3%<\/a>. In Italy, researchers estimate that 1.2% of all cases<\/a> have resulted in death, and in France, 0.8%<\/a>.<\/p>\n These estimates are on the higher end of the disease\u2019s apparent fatality across the world. A preliminary analysis<\/a> of more than two dozen studies from Europe, China, the US, and elsewhere, conducted by Meyerowitz-Katz and colleague Lea Merone, suggests that the overall infection fatality rate is between 0.5% and 0.78%. Even the lower end of that range is higher than what the CDC says is its \u201cbest estimate\u201d for the rate, which is about 0.26%.<\/p>\n The CDC\u2019s proposed fatality rates \u201care more in line with a relatively mild seasonal flu season than with COVID-19,\u201d said Gerardo Chowell, a public health expert at Georgia State University. Those estimates are at least an order of magnitude lower than ones elsewhere in the world, he added, including South Korea, which has a case fatality rate around 0.7%<\/a> and one of the highest testing rates for the coronavirus in the world.<\/p>\n Another preprint<\/a>, released last week by Ioannidis of Stanford, put forth a much lower range that is closer to the CDC\u2019s, from 0.02% to 0.4%. (Meyerowitz-Katz<\/a> and others<\/a> have criticized the paper for including some questionable estimates on the lower end while leaving out higher rates in places like Spain, as well as for its statistical analysis.)<\/p>\n But the CDC document provided almost no sources for its projections, making it impossible for scientists to understand how it came up with them.<\/p>\n The white paper, posted May 20, states that it is based on \u201cdata received by CDC\u201d prior to April 29, and its death rate projections on \u201cpreliminary COVID-19 estimates, CDC.\u201d The only coronavirus-related study cited is a preprint about the virus\u2019s incubation period,<\/a> led by Iranian researchers and released nearly two months ago.<\/p>\n The CDC did not respond to questions about its data sources or why the preprint was the only coronavirus study cited. (The paper\u2019s lead scientist in Iran also did not return a request for comment.)<\/p>\n The low estimates and lack of transparency have frustrated scientists, who have been watching the coronavirus\u2019s death rate become weaponized in the increasingly partisan debate over reopening the economy. \u201cWhen I see that \u2014 especially for something that has become a question and has become more politicized than I ever would have expected \u2014 there\u2019s an obligation to explain the source,\u201d said Dean, the University of Florida biostatistician.<\/p>\n Carl Bergstrom, an epidemiologist at the University of Washington, expressed concern that the CDC\u2019s numbers will skew projections going forward because there will be some pressure to use the US government\u2019s models.<\/p>\n \u201cGiven that these parameter sets underestimate fatality by a substantial margin compared to current scientific consensus, I see this as deeply problematic,\u201d he said by email.<\/p>\n As June approaches, all 50 states<\/a> are in some stage of reopening. Public health experts, including Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, worry that some parts of the country may be starting up too quickly<\/a> and could cause a new wave of infections and deaths.<\/p>\n Noymer, the UC Irvine demographer, said the nation can\u2019t make informed decisions about the way forward without the most accurate data possible.<\/p>\n \u201cI am not in favor of indefinite and severe lockdowns,\u201d he said. \u201cBut as we balance the risk and reward, we have to have hopefully realistic estimates of both.\u201d<\/p>\n He added, \u201cThese estimates are doing a disservice to policy because it\u2019s not a realistic estimate of the risk.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n
\n Eduardo Munoz Alvarez \/ Getty Images
\n<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n
\n<\/hr>\n
<\/br><\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n
\n Eric Baradat \/ Getty Images
\n<\/span><\/p>\n
<\/br><\/p>\n