This issue is relevant for:
@Jennifer-Villers and @jordan-klein: they are handling parameters.
@JudithBouman2412: We discuss if a class is included, affecting the estimation of R0
The question to solve here is how to parameterize an additional class for age 2 to model comorbidities (14-49 years old). According to Chamsy comorbidities in the country are around 13% but in the camps are "much higher".
In this issue we should discuss (please bring your opinion following 1, 2, ..)
Problem
Which fraction of this population should we consider in this class? Do we have any further argument?
Should we consider this class at all? Alternative: take this fraction of age 2 and aggregate it to age 3.
If we consider this class, which would be the parameters?
Proposed solution
Since the 13% refers to the whole population but class 2 goes from 14-49 which is not the one with more comorbidities (in particular for young people), and we are already shifting the parameters (fatalities, etc.) towards Western values of populations 10 years older, I think that considering 13% is a good estimation.
Yes, because even if the fatalities parameters will be comparable to those of age 3 the lifestyle is still one of age 2 (contact matrix) and decisions related to segregating the population within the camp may exclude a signficant fraction of people in this class (note the large number of possibly underreported cases in the data).
Infectious to critical and deaths of age 3 and the remaining of age 2
This issue is relevant for: @Jennifer-Villers and @jordan-klein: they are handling parameters. @JudithBouman2412: We discuss if a class is included, affecting the estimation of R0
The question to solve here is how to parameterize an additional class for age 2 to model comorbidities (14-49 years old). According to Chamsy comorbidities in the country are around 13% but in the camps are "much higher".
In this issue we should discuss (please bring your opinion following 1, 2, ..)
Problem
Proposed solution
Since the 13% refers to the whole population but class 2 goes from 14-49 which is not the one with more comorbidities (in particular for young people), and we are already shifting the parameters (fatalities, etc.) towards Western values of populations 10 years older, I think that considering 13% is a good estimation.
Yes, because even if the fatalities parameters will be comparable to those of age 3 the lifestyle is still one of age 2 (contact matrix) and decisions related to segregating the population within the camp may exclude a signficant fraction of people in this class (note the large number of possibly underreported cases in the data).
Infectious to critical and deaths of age 3 and the remaining of age 2