A retired neurosurgeon tells the truth about the Covid pandemic

a reply to: optimisticcontrarian

Well, this isn't an IQ Test but we are debating I suppose.

I have noticed a pattern which seems to be the case when online conversations take place.

Attacking the person and not their arguments it's a very common tactic. They seem to be doing so regardless of someone's experience and education. For example a well known scientist can suddenly become a 'conspiracy' theorist.

In many cases it goes like this:

Arguments made in the absence of good evidence which are easily dismissed.

Then appeals to emotions

And finally personal attacks.


Coming back to the topic of the thread. I don't know if this particular expert has been called incompetent or a conspiracy theorist and a quack. It won't be a surprise to be honest.

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: chr0naut

You said:

"The 1918 flu spread to nearly 100% of the world population over a three year period. COVID-19 has not spread that far. There were lock-downs, and vaccinations, and isolation of those affected with COVID-19, which were not possible in 1918."


Not that's not true just as most of the claims made.
The flu of 1918 infected an estimated 500 million people out of the population of 1.5 billion.
That's why the infection fatality rate is about 10%. Hence about 1/3 of the population was infected and not the entire population of the planet as you have claimed.


www.cdc.gov...


"It is estimated that about 500 million people or one-third of the world’s population became infected with this virus. The number of deaths was estimated to be at least 50 million worldwide with about 675,000 occurring in the United States"


Information provided by the CDC. Note that at least 50 million died which implies that the infection fatality rate could be higher than 10%.


In contrast the IFR of COVID-19 is 0.15% and by February 2021 an estimated 1.5-2 billion people were infected. By October of 2022 you understand that the number of infections may well exceed the 4-5 billion and hence it has infected a much larger percentage of the population in comparison to the Spanish Flu.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...


"All systematic evaluations of seroprevalence data converge that SARS-CoV-2 infection is widely spread globally. Acknowledging residual uncertainties, the available evidence suggests average global IFR of ~0.15% and ~1.5-2.0 billion infections by February 2021 with substantial differences in IFR and in infection spread across continents, countries and locations"


I think you need to re-evaluate again your claims and arguments as you have clearly confused them. The logic, sequence, and math, don't add up. I understand you are trying to present COVID-19 as the Spanish Flu but anyone with basic high school knowledge can refute your claims.

The problem is, when you destroy his fabricated arguments so thoroughly, he just disappears, later to return to another thread to try the same cheap tactics. Like a pesky STD that won't go away.

I haven't taken part in these threads but I find it fascinating that there are attempts to portray COVID-19 as the Spanish Flu. These are two very different diseases, they affect populations differently, and their infection fatality rates are nowhere near.

The IFR for the Spanish Flu was around 10%
The IFR for COVID-19 is around 0.15%

But these attempts are usually politically and ideologically motivated as one can guess.

originally posted by: NorthOfStuff
a reply to: chr0naut

People didn’t “die with the Spanish Flu” they died from the Spanish Flu.

Additionally, population mobility and density have increased exponentially since the early 1900’s.

Head to head the Spanish Flu would be far more serious than Covid today.

This can measured by the most important number when we deal with infectious diseases: The Infection Fatality Rate or shortly IFR

IFR is the ratio of the total number of deaths over the total number of infections. The total number of infections is always an estimate but we have very good statistical surveillance and seroprevalence data to to give an accurate picture of how many people have been infected.

The IFR for Spanish Flu was 10%
The IFR for COVID-19 is 0.15%

COVID-19 is a mild disease for most of us.
The Spanish Flu was very different and killed many more not only in absolute numbers but as a percentage of the population. It killed 50 million people at least and infected 500 million. The population of the planet was around 1.5 billion at that time.

But as it seems there are desperate attempts to present COVID-19 as the Spanish Flu by assuming that others have the same understanding about matters as those who peddle this misinformation and nonsense.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: chr0naut

You said:

"The 1918 flu spread to nearly 100% of the world population over a three year period. COVID-19 has not spread that far. There were lock-downs, and vaccinations, and isolation of those affected with COVID-19, which were not possible in 1918."


Not that's not true just as most of the claims made.
The flu of 1918 infected an estimated 500 million people out of the population of 1.5 billion.
That's why the infection fatality rate is about 10%. Hence about 1/3 of the population was infected and not the entire population of the planet as you have claimed.


www.cdc.gov...


"It is estimated that about 500 million people or one-third of the world’s population became infected with this virus. The number of deaths was estimated to be at least 50 million worldwide with about 675,000 occurring in the United States"


Information provided by the CDC. Note that at least 50 million died which implies that the infection fatality rate could be higher than 10%.


In contrast the IFR of COVID-19 is 0.15% and by February 2021 an estimated 1.5-2 billion people were infected. By October of 2022 you understand that the number of infections may well exceed the 4-5 billion and hence it has infected a much larger percentage of the population in comparison to the Spanish Flu.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...


"All systematic evaluations of seroprevalence data converge that SARS-CoV-2 infection is widely spread globally. Acknowledging residual uncertainties, the available evidence suggests average global IFR of ~0.15% and ~1.5-2.0 billion infections by February 2021 with substantial differences in IFR and in infection spread across continents, countries and locations"


I think you need to re-evaluate again your claims and arguments as you have clearly confused them. The logic, sequence, and math, don't add up. I understand you are trying to present COVID-19 as the Spanish Flu but anyone with basic high school knowledge can refute your claims.

The problem is, when you destroy his fabricated arguments so thoroughly, he just disappears, later to return to another thread to try the same cheap tactics. Like a pesky STD that won't go away.

I haven't taken part in these threads but I find it fascinating that there are attempts to portray COVID-19 as the Spanish Flu. These are two very different diseases, they affect populations differently, and their infection fatality rates are nowhere near.

The IFR for the Spanish Flu was around 10%
The IFR for COVID-19 is around 0.15%

But these attempts are usually politically and ideologically motivated as one can guess.

Financially motivated I'd say.

66'000 people died in the uk in 2020, within 28 days following a positive test. 4727 from age 0 to 59. The vast majority, 80% over 70. Had several diseases. If they had any chances of survival well that was destroyed with zero treatment apart from drugging you into a coma and stuffing a pipe into your lungs. So who really knows if they died from, with covid, their disease or just the death by "treatment".

This equates to 0.1% total population died.

And spent BILLIONS on masks that dont work, just get thrown into the bin, so thats great isnt it?

The Government’s use of a so-called “VIP lane” to award millions of pounds’ worth of contracts for personal protective equipment was unlawful, the High Court has ruled.

Campaigners took legal action over nearly £600 million of contracts awarded to pest control firm PestFix and hedge fund Ayanda Capital at the height of the first wave of the coronavirus pandemic.

The High Court heard that a VIP lane was reserved for referrals from MPs, ministers and senior officials, with campaigners arguing the Government “prioritised suppliers including PestFix and Ayanda because of who they knew, not what they could deliver”.

In a judgment on Wednesday, Mrs Justice O’Farrell said the operation of the VIP lane, officially known as the high priority lane, was “in breach of the obligation of equal treatment”.

Oooo i bet china is loving that money.


15 billion or something on SPYING APP called "track and trace" which they WILL bring back...to spy on everything. Billions in pay outs for people to sit on their ass for no reason other than to ruin everything and get you into debt so you can be controlled.

They're technically using YOU to pass billions onto massive corporations because where are people spending the money????when ONLY big corporations shops are allowed to be open??? Then.....YOU pay them. Then you also have to pay the debt for the taxes were used to pay you to give to the massive corporations.

Billions spent on vaccines that literally do not work, do not stop the virus, do not stop you from dying if you can die from covid cause your immune system obviously is #ed. 99.9% of people do not NEED the vaccine.

They could have built hospitals..well they build one .....cost millions, they treated nobody at all and now dont even use it.

Swansea's Bay Field hospital is closing two years after the Covid pandemic sparked its sudden creation. The facility was intended to free up space in hospitals by transferring Covid and non-Covid patients who were out of danger to a facility at Llandarcy at first and then, as they recovered further, to the Bay before returning home. However, it was never actually used for its original purpose, but instead ended up as a mass vaccination centre.

They could have put money into training more doctors and nurses.... but instead its much easier to waste zillions on total #ing non sense.

If you go along with it, if you honour this, you reap what you sow.

originally posted by: thethinkingman
66'000 people died in the uk in 2020, within 28 days following a positive test. 4527 from age 0 to 59. The vast majority, 80% over 70. Had several diseases. If they had any chances of survival well that was destroyed with zero treatment apart from drugging you into a coma and stuffing a pipe into your lungs. So who really knows if they died from, with covid, their disease or just the death by "treatment".

This equates to 0.1% total population died.

And spent BILLIONS on masks that dont work, just get thrown into the bin, so thats great isnt it?

The Government’s use of a so-called “VIP lane” to award millions of pounds’ worth of contracts for personal protective equipment was unlawful, the High Court has ruled.

Campaigners took legal action over nearly £600 million of contracts awarded to pest control firm PestFix and hedge fund Ayanda Capital at the height of the first wave of the coronavirus pandemic.

The High Court heard that a VIP lane was reserved for referrals from MPs, ministers and senior officials, with campaigners arguing the Government “prioritised suppliers including PestFix and Ayanda because of who they knew, not what they could deliver”.

In a judgment on Wednesday, Mrs Justice O’Farrell said the operation of the VIP lane, officially known as the high priority lane, was “in breach of the obligation of equal treatment”.

Oooo i bet china is loving that money.


15 billion or something on SPYING APP called "track and trace" which they WILL bring back...to spy on everything. Billions in pay outs for people to sit on their ass for no reason other than to ruin everything and get you into debt so you can be controlled.

They're technically using YOU to pass billions onto massive corporations because where are people spending the money????when ONLY big corporations shops are allowed to be open??? Then.....you've pay them. Then you also have to pay the debt for the taxes were used to pay you to give to the massive corporations.

Billions spent on vaccines that literally do not work, do not stop the virus, do not stop you from dying if you can die from covid cause your immune system obviously is #ed. 99.9% of people do not NEED the vaccine.

They could have built hospitals..well they build one .....cost millions, they treated nobody at all and now dont even use it.

Swansea's Bay Field hospital is closing two years after the Covid pandemic sparked its sudden creation. The facility was intended to free up space in hospitals by transferring Covid and non-Covid patients who were out of danger to a facility at Llandarcy at first and then, as they recovered further, to the Bay before returning home. However, it was never actually used for its original purpose, but instead ended up as a mass vaccination centre.

They could have put money into training more doctors and nurses.... but instead its much easier to waste zillions on total #ing non sense.

If you go along with it, if you honour this, you reap what you sow.

Task: If you go to the ONS website you can find what the average age of death is due to COVID-19.
I think there is plenty of data even before the vaccines were rolled out.

One can understand well how a disease behaves if they know two things: .

1) Infection fatality rate (IFR)
2) Average age of death due to the disease

a reply to: Asmodeus3

I already did this in 2020 and 2021 in uk. For 2020 from my calculations then 78.5% of the deaths were people 70 to 85+.

My numbers that i have written down are. 0 TO AGE 59= 4727 deaths. age 60 to 69 = 7381 deaths. 70-79 = 17'144 deaths. age 80+ = 42'926 deaths.

This was based on figures that had 10'000 extra deaths (possibly more) included which have since been removed.

So 15% of the deaths removed after telling everyone it was more..... So double the amount of numbers removed compared to how many people died aged 0 to 59.

All in all considering a new, novel very infectious virus.....thats really not anywhere near as bad as the over reaction. These kinds of numbers of deaths happen for lots of other things and the world isnt shut down and zillions pumped into it.

Imagine 37 BILLION was pumped into cancer research???? or giving food to those who need it??? Anyone who thinks they didnt get scammed, lied to and possibly gravely injured are completely unaware, ignorant or stupid at this point.

originally posted by: thethinkingman
a reply to: Asmodeus3

I already did this in 2020 and 2021 in uk. For 2020 from my calculations then 78.5% of the deaths were people 70 to 85+.

My numbers that i have written down are. 0 TO AGE 59= 4727 deaths. age 60 to 69 = 7381 deaths. 70-79 = 17'144 deaths. age 80+ = 42'926 deaths.

This was based on figures that had 10'000 extra deaths (possibly more) included which have since been removed.

So 15% of the deaths removed after telling everyone it was more..... So double the amount of numbers removed compared to how many people died aged 0 to 59.

All in all considering a new, novel very infectious virus.....thats really not anywhere near as bad as the over reaction. These kinds of numbers of deaths happen for lots of other things and the world isnt shut down and zillions pumped into it.

Imagine 37 BILLION was pumped into cancer research???? or giving food to those who need it??? Anyone who thinks they didnt get scammed, lied to and possibly gravely injured are completely unaware, ignorant or stupid at this point.

From a freedom of information request published at the beginning of January 2021 i.e with the vast majority of people unvaccinated the average age of death due to Covid is 80.4!!!

www.ons.gov.uk...


You can deduce a lot of information based on this number alone and the infection fatality rate of 0.15%.

In a few simple words, COVID-19 is a mild disease for the vast majority people and the vast majority of deaths occur to the elderly and clinically vulnerable. No more no less.

No justifications exist for the 2 years of hysteria and paranoia that swept the world, the closure of schools, universities, businesses, the lengthy lockdowns and the predictions of gloom n doom.

Next stage: There should public hearings and legal enquiries into this massive scandal i.e the response to COVID-19 which looks like it has harmed young and healthy populations.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: chr0naut

Let me do the maths for you then.

The infection fatality rate of the Spanish Flu was at least 10%. Let's say 10% for the calculations. Around 1/3 of the total population was infected and around 50 million people died. The total population was 1.5 billion people in 1918 and the number infected around 500 million.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Let's see now COVID-19. The infection fatality rate is 0.15%.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Let's say then we go back to 1918 and we apply the IFR not to the entire population i.e assuming that everyone is infected with SARS-CoV-2! Then the maximum number of deaths we can have is about 2,250,000. That is around 2 million and 250 thousand deaths. Nowhere near and I have assumed everyone has been infected. If we assume that 1/3 of the planet is infected just as in the case of the Spanish flu then we have 750 thousands deaths.

The inferred IFR of COVID-19 was estimated long before the vaccines have come into play in case any claim is made as to why is so low. There is a huge difference between the Spanish Flu and COVID-19 but it was portrayed this way for political and ideological reasons.

Hence your argument that these two diseases would have killed the same amount of people back in 1918 has no merits and is dismissed i.e easily refuted given the unsubstantiated claims and voodoo maths.

Since the CFR includes fairly absolute and rigorous numbers, based upon actual counted cases and deaths, and the IFR includes guesses about unreported cases, regardless of who wrote a paper or how respected they are supposed to be (appeal to authority is a logical fallacy), I would say that you (and they) are ignoring the hard data in preference for speculation.

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: chr0naut

You said:

"The 1918 flu spread to nearly 100% of the world population over a three year period. COVID-19 has not spread that far. There were lock-downs, and vaccinations, and isolation of those affected with COVID-19, which were not possible in 1918."

Not that's not true just as most of the claims made.
The flu of 1918 infected an estimated 500 million people out of the population of 1.5 billion.
That's why the infection fatality rate is about 10%. Hence about 1/3 of the population was infected and not the entire population of the planet as you have claimed.

www.cdc.gov...

"It is estimated that about 500 million people or one-third of the world’s population became infected with this virus. The number of deaths was estimated to be at least 50 million worldwide with about 675,000 occurring in the United States"

Information provided by the CDC. Note that at least 50 million died which implies that the infection fatality rate could be higher than 10%.

In contrast the IFR of COVID-19 is 0.15% and by February 2021 an estimated 1.5-2 billion people were infected. By October of 2022 you understand that the number of infections may well exceed the 4-5 billion and hence it has infected a much larger percentage of the population in comparison to the Spanish Flu.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

"All systematic evaluations of seroprevalence data converge that SARS-CoV-2 infection is widely spread globally. Acknowledging residual uncertainties, the available evidence suggests average global IFR of ~0.15% and ~1.5-2.0 billion infections by February 2021 with substantial differences in IFR and in infection spread across continents, countries and locations"

I think you need to re-evaluate again your claims and arguments as you have clearly confused them. The logic, sequence, and math, don't add up. I understand you are trying to present COVID-19 as the Spanish Flu but anyone with basic high school knowledge can refute your claims.

The problem is, when you destroy his fabricated arguments so thoroughly, he just disappears, later to return to another thread to try the same cheap tactics. Like a pesky STD that won't go away.

The problem is that the CFR, upon which my argument is based, is NOT a fabricated argument, but is a fairly solid measurement.

The IFR is based, in part, upon speculation about data that is not reported. This weakens any argument based upon the IFR.

That doesn't stop you, v1rtu0s0, from jumping to speculative conclusions that support a paranoid interpretation that 'they' are all out to get you.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: optimisticcontrarian

Well, this isn't an IQ Test but we are debating I suppose.

I have noticed a pattern which seems to be the case when online conversations take place.

Attacking the person and not their arguments it's a very common tactic. They seem to be doing so regardless of someone's experience and education. For example a well known scientist can suddenly become a 'conspiracy' theorist.

In many cases it goes like this:

Arguments made in the absence of good evidence which are easily dismissed.

Then appeals to emotions

And finally personal attacks.

Coming back to the topic of the thread. I don't know if this particular expert has been called incompetent or a conspiracy theorist and a quack. It won't be a surprise to be honest.

Usually, when someone begins attacking their opponent in debate, it indicates that they have lost the debate.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: chr0naut

Let me do the maths for you then.

The infection fatality rate of the Spanish Flu was at least 10%. Let's say 10% for the calculations. Around 1/3 of the total population was infected and around 50 million people died. The total population was 1.5 billion people in 1918 and the number infected around 500 million.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Let's see now COVID-19. The infection fatality rate is 0.15%.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Let's say then we go back to 1918 and we apply the IFR not to the entire population i.e assuming that everyone is infected with SARS-CoV-2! Then the maximum number of deaths we can have is about 2,250,000. That is around 2 million and 250 thousand deaths. Nowhere near and I have assumed everyone has been infected. If we assume that 1/3 of the planet is infected just as in the case of the Spanish flu then we have 750 thousands deaths.

The inferred IFR of COVID-19 was estimated long before the vaccines have come into play in case any claim is made as to why is so low. There is a huge difference between the Spanish Flu and COVID-19 but it was portrayed this way for political and ideological reasons.

Hence your argument that these two diseases would have killed the same amount of people back in 1918 has no merits and is dismissed i.e easily refuted given the unsubstantiated claims and voodoo maths.

Since the CFR includes fairly absolute and rigorous numbers, based upon actual counted cases and deaths, and the IFR includes guesses about unreported cases, regardless of who wrote a paper or how respected they are supposed to be (appeal to authority is a logical fallacy), I would say that you (and they) are ignoring the hard data in preference for speculation.

You probably haven't read what I have written and you go about your own ideas and views in epidemiology which are unsubstantiated and false when at the same time you doubt the validity of one of the most cited research peer reviewed papers which has become the reference frame for infectious disease experts and epidemiologists. I think it has 492 citations, meaning that 492 scientists have recognised the validity of the paper and they have cited when they are publishing their own work.

I don't think you will find a paper with 492 citations. It's highly unlikely. But it has been written by one of the top epidemiologists and Professor of Medicine, John Ioannidis from Stanford.

The same paper has been published in one of the Bulletins of the World Health Organisation and the estimations are very accurate.

You somehow regard statistical surveillance and gathering of seroprevalence data and evaluation as 'guesses'. But that's absurd. What drives these estimations is science, real data, and statistics. Not guesses and wishful thinking.

Professor Ioannidis is not ignoring the data and neither do the other scientists. I think it is yourself who ignores the data and tries to portray COVID-19 as the Spanish Flu. I mean this is called complete disregard of reality.


It's quite remarkable that you started from a claim where COVID-19 would have killed the same number of people back in 1918 disregarding completely the IFR which is the true description of how many people die and how many are infected, and now you go even further by disregarding data and evidence from the last almost 3 years when at the same time you doubt peer reviewed scientific research and the scientists who have produced it.

I don't think I need to say more.

a reply to: chr0naut

There is no much debate here if you haven't realised it. My posts (that refer to you) are usually lengthy and are focused in correcting your unsubstantiated claims and mistakes. They are not personal attacks though. I have 'attacked' your arguments and not you personally.

Claiming that COVID-19 would have killed as many people as the Spanish Flu back in 1918 is false and it's based on voodoo mathematics.

In order to have a good idea of how many people would have died if COVID-19 was present in 1918 then you need a good estimate of the IFR and not...voodoo mathematics!

a reply to: chr0naut


Academic research and in particular the value of IFR which is difficult to estimate doesn't rely on guesses and is not 'fabricated evidence' as you have claimed. It's neither speculation but is driven by statistical surveillance and seroprevalence data.

I think your arguments are getting increasingly confused.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: chr0naut

You said:

"The 1918 flu spread to nearly 100% of the world population over a three year period. COVID-19 has not spread that far. There were lock-downs, and vaccinations, and isolation of those affected with COVID-19, which were not possible in 1918."

Not that's not true just as most of the claims made.
The flu of 1918 infected an estimated 500 million people out of the population of 1.5 billion.
That's why the infection fatality rate is about 10%. Hence about 1/3 of the population was infected and not the entire population of the planet as you have claimed.

www.cdc.gov...

"It is estimated that about 500 million people or one-third of the world’s population became infected with this virus. The number of deaths was estimated to be at least 50 million worldwide with about 675,000 occurring in the United States"

Information provided by the CDC. Note that at least 50 million died which implies that the infection fatality rate could be higher than 10%.

In contrast the IFR of COVID-19 is 0.15% and by February 2021 an estimated 1.5-2 billion people were infected. By October of 2022 you understand that the number of infections may well exceed the 4-5 billion and hence it has infected a much larger percentage of the population in comparison to the Spanish Flu.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

"All systematic evaluations of seroprevalence data converge that SARS-CoV-2 infection is widely spread globally. Acknowledging residual uncertainties, the available evidence suggests average global IFR of ~0.15% and ~1.5-2.0 billion infections by February 2021 with substantial differences in IFR and in infection spread across continents, countries and locations"

I think you need to re-evaluate again your claims and arguments as you have clearly confused them. The logic, sequence, and math, don't add up. I understand you are trying to present COVID-19 as the Spanish Flu but anyone with basic high school knowledge can refute your claims.

The problem is, when you destroy his fabricated arguments so thoroughly, he just disappears, later to return to another thread to try the same cheap tactics. Like a pesky STD that won't go away.

The IFR is based, in part, upon speculation about data that is not reported. This weakens any argument based upon the IFR.

Arguments based on the IFR are only weak in your opinion and not in real terms.

The CFR is not a good guide that's why most of the research is focused in estimating the IFR. This number only can give you an idea of how many people have been infected as opposed to confirmed infections. That's basic epidemiology you seem to ignore.

Amen to that friend.
It's the end of the world every day for those just die, so I'll live till I die.
a reply to: MaxxAction

Still I haven't seen any valid argument and any justification in relation to the claim made that if SARS-CoV-2 was present back in 1918 it would have killed the same number of people the Spanish Flu killed.

The argument has no merits because it's driven by ignorance and ideology rather than evidence and facts.

These claims have been refuted long time ago but to insist that this is true at this moment in time then it's like ignoring basic facts, epidemiology, the history of infectious diseases and reality. In addition those who make these claims don't seem to have a good relationship with mathematics.

It reminds me of the claims made elsewhere where a woman is one who identifies as a woman...

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
Adding on the above comment.
The CFR is not a good indicator eventhough it describes the ratio of deaths to the actual confirmed cases.

The IFR is the most important from all and much harder to estimate as it describes the ratio of deaths to the total number of infected individuals.
The use of statistics play an importany role in determining the IFR. Surveillance and seroprevalence data mainly.

Seroprevalence is the analysis of blood borne factors of disease in blood bank samples.

For diseases that aren't blood borne, these factors would not be particularly clear indicators.

Also, how much seroprevalence data do we have from 1918 or even the following decade of the 1920's?

In 1918, they couldn't genotype a pathogen. They definitely couldn't see a virus under an optical microscope. Electron microscopy and X-ray crystallography were half a century in the future. And there's no way that they could preserve biological samples from then, so that we could assay them with modern technology.

The only way they could define a disease at the time, was symptomatically - which gets back to actual cases under clinical care.

They could count cases by symptoms, and death of a patient is fairly obvious.

They usually did keep quite meticulous notes about hospitalized patients in 1918, but Florence Nightingale hadn't even been born then, so it was nowhere near as systematic or rigorous as modern medicine. (*Apologies, i got the wrong century for Florence Nightingale, who was actually born in 1820).

That is why CFR is a good measure and IFR is a guess, especially so for the 1918 flu.

a reply to: chr0naut

Nightingale died in 1910 and IFR is a far better measure of lethality than CFR in most cases.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
Adding on the above comment.
The CFR is not a good indicator eventhough it describes the ratio of deaths to the actual confirmed cases.

The IFR is the most important from all and much harder to estimate as it describes the ratio of deaths to the total number of infected individuals.
The use of statistics play an importany role in determining the IFR. Surveillance and seroprevalence data mainly.

Seroprevalence is the analysis of blood borne factors of disease in blood bank samples.

For diseases that aren't blood borne, these factors would not be particularly clear indicators.

Also, how much seroprevalence data do we have from 1918 or even the following decade of the 1920's?

In 1918, they couldn't genotype a pathogen. They definitely couldn't see a virus under an optical microscope. Electron microscopy and X-ray crystallography were half a century in the future. And there's no way that they could preserve biological samples from then, so that we could assay them with modern technology.

The only way they could define a disease at the time, was symptomatically - which gets back to actual cases under clinical care.

They could count cases by symptoms, and death of a patient is fairly obvious.

They usually did keep quite meticulous notes about hospitalized patients in 1918, but Florence Nightingale hadn't even been born then, so it was nowhere near as systematic or rigorous as modern medicine.

That is why CFR is a good measure and IFR is a guess, especially so for the 1918 flu.

Here goes again a refuted argument!

CFR isn't good at all.
IFR is what you are looking for. Which is much harder to estimate.