These COVID Statistics Are Mind Blowing

Just like I’ve said since March 2020 when everyone called me a fool. And yes I mean almost everybody, even many on the right. But, I said it then and continue saying it, they just rebranded the flu. I believe it started as a big money grab, then evolved into restricting peoples freedoms to steal the US election by our politicians and many allied world leaders. America was on the up and up before Covid, the middle class was advancing faster than other time I’ve been alive. They can’t let the little guy rise up, it’s not good for big business.

ETA: This was meant for the OP, unsure how it replied to you Dandandat2

a reply to: Middleoftheroad

It would be nice to actually know what is actually going on. We can see the results and the probable long-term consequences, all caused by government decisions. It seems to fall on the side of a depopulation exercise by stealth from the top.

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: Middleoftheroad

It would be nice to actually know what is actually going on. We can see the results and the probable long-term consequences, all caused by government decisions. It seems to fall on the side of a depopulation exercise by stealth from the top.

If that was the plan, then they are even dumber than I thought. Obviously nobody knows the true end game they intended. But here is my question, why would they depopulate the sheep that will bow down to all of their orders and leave all of us individual thinkers?

a reply to: Middleoftheroad

Assuming that there is no real democracy, all countries seem to be operating in unison and wait for orders or do nothing but prevaricate. If enough people have woken up to the fact that it is all a pre-sctipted narrative. The stealth aspect is blown and they are undone. So we are drifting with no direction except the last published order, which seems to poke the Bear. It is fairly obvious not a lot seems to be getting done on glaring social issues.

Dr. Ryan Cole - The Vaxed Can Quite Possibly
Produce Spike Protein Which Will Kill Them
For At Least A YEAR After A BioWeapon Injection
Spike Is Being Found In Most All Deaths Of Vaxed

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

IFR is an estimate based upon assumptions about the prevalence of unreported infections.

We can see, from the more absolute numbers, like mortality attributed to COVID-19 that the IFR figures are quite dodgy.

While IFR is reasonable for trying to estimate how fast and far an infectious disease may spread, the CFR number, which compares known tested cases to case mortality, is probably a more reliable number for medical staff who must have good intelligence for dealing with any sort of epidemic or pandemic.

The distance between IFR and CFR numbers shows how 'trustable' the estimate is likely to be.

Because also of the wide variation of IFR estimates, where nearly every researcher has a different IFR (even when analyzing the same population), it is possible to cherry-pick IFR's in meta-analyses such as this, to represent an opinion rather than some sort of hard fact.

We have discussed before that the CFR is not a reliable or accurate measurement of how virulent a disease is. You don't seem to have understood the concept yet but I suppose you want to propagate the idea that Covid-19 has a high fatality rate which is untrue.

It seems to me that you are circulating the same debunked arguments which you have promoted in other threads.

The IFR is the most important number and hence there is so much research dedicated to it to find its true value which has been already estimated long time ago by one of the top epidemiologists Dr John Ioannidis from Stanford and it's 0.15%

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

Don't involve politics into science please.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33

The infection fatality rate (IFR) of COVID-19 among non-elderly people in the absence of vaccination or prior infection is important to estimate accurately, since 94% of the global population is younger than 70 years and 86% is younger than 60 years.

Fatality Rate of covid in non-elderly people PRE-VACCINATION was lower than previously suggested.

0.0003% - 0-19yrs
0.003% - 20-29yrs
0.011% - 30-39yrs
0.035% - 40-49yrs
0.129% - 50-59yrs
0.501% - 60-69yrs

And we shut down the world, fired people from jobs, forced people to get jabs, made little kids wear masks, shut schools down, when the true fatality rate was 1/2 percent for everybody under 69........how insane is that?
Everybody of school age .0003% IFR rate, why would we ever force them, of all people, the risks were way higher than the any possible rewards for them. What a bogus sham.

LINK
IFR ARTICLE

Statistically; is this the least lethal pandemic in the history of the world ?

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

Global IFR = 0.15%

Dr John Ioannidis - Stanford University

COVID-19 is a mild disease for most of us regardless the attempts to present it as the Spanish Flu in order to justify the most absurd, ludicrous, and antiscientific campaign we have ever witnessed in our lives.

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: Middleoftheroad

It would be nice to actually know what is actually going on. We can see the results and the probable long-term consequences, all caused by government decisions. It seems to fall on the side of a depopulation exercise by stealth from the top.

You depopulate by restricting abortion paying people child welfare and giving them housing priority if they have more kids, and taking contraception out of sex Ed it schools.?

a reply to: Asmodeus3

IFR much higher than .15 in the US and other high income nations.

www.thelancet.com...(21)02867-1/fulltext

originally posted by: watchitburn
And there's still people wearing masks...

driving a car alone SMH

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Asmodeus3

IFR much higher than .15 in the US and other high income nations.

www.thelancet.com...(21)02867-1/fulltext

We have discussed many times before that IFR is measured at a global level regardless of the difference of local IFRs. So there isn't any point in your comment or your attempt to present this as something that is not.

Here is the IFR as measured at a global level

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

And it is 0.15%

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Asmodeus3

IFR much higher than .15 in the US and other high income nations.

www.thelancet.com...(21)02867-1/fulltext

We have discussed many times before that IFR is measured at a global level regardless of the difference of local IFRs. So there isn't any point in your comment or your attempt to present this as something that is not.

The paper shows IFR being measured by age and by country. Your belief that it is only measured at global level is demonstrably wrong.

Why would the US (or any country) base its response based on a global rate that may be much higher or lower than among its own population?

Eta you own link states

Even correcting inappropriate exclusions/inclusion of studies, errors and seroreversion, IFR still varies substantially across continents and countries.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Asmodeus3

IFR much higher than .15 in the US and other high income nations.

www.thelancet.com...(21)02867-1/fulltext

We have discussed many times before that IFR is measured at a global level regardless of the difference of local IFRs. So there isn't any point in your comment or your attempt to present this as something that is not.

The paper shows IFR being measured by age and by country. Your belief that it is only measured at global level is demonstrably wrong.

Why would the US (or any country) base its response based on a global rate that may be much higher or lower than among its own population?

.


That's a strawman argument.
I don't have a belief that it is only measured at a global level. However the IFR is a number that shows virulent a disease is and all you have died from the disease and divided by the total number of infections to send how the disease performs.
When estimating the IFR of the Spanish Flu we didn't take local IFRs but the overall deaths divided by the overall infections.

And your link doesn't seem to work.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Asmodeus3

IFR much higher than .15 in the US and other high income nations.

www.thelancet.com...(21)02867-1/fulltext

We have discussed many times before that IFR is measured at a global level regardless of the difference of local IFRs. So there isn't any point in your comment or your attempt to present this as something that is not.

The paper shows IFR being measured by age and by country. Your belief that it is only measured at global level is demonstrably wrong.

Why would the US (or any country) base its response based on a global rate that may be much higher or lower than among its own population?

.


That's a strawman argument.
I don't have a belief that it is only measured at a global level. However the IFR is a number that shows virulent a disease is and all you have died from the disease and divided by the total number of infections to send how the disease performs.
When estimating the IFR of the Spanish Flu we didn't take local IFRs but the overall deaths divided by the overall infections.

It's very unlikely that IFR will be that much higher from one place to another. And your link doesn't seem to work.

See my edit.

Your own link says there is substantial variance.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Asmodeus3

IFR much higher than .15 in the US and other high income nations.

www.thelancet.com...(21)02867-1/fulltext

We have discussed many times before that IFR is measured at a global level regardless of the difference of local IFRs. So there isn't any point in your comment or your attempt to present this as something that is not.

The paper shows IFR being measured by age and by country. Your belief that it is only measured at global level is demonstrably wrong.

Why would the US (or any country) base its response based on a global rate that may be much higher or lower than among its own population?

.


That's a strawman argument.
I don't have a belief that it is only measured at a global level. However the IFR is a number that shows virulent a disease is and all you have died from the disease and divided by the total number of infections to send how the disease performs.
When estimating the IFR of the Spanish Flu we didn't take local IFRs but the overall deaths divided by the overall infections.

It's very unlikely that IFR will be that much higher from one place to another. And your link doesn't seem to work.

See my edit.

Your own link says there is substantial variance.

The link still doesn't work but don't worry this is besides the point.

The global IFR for which the paper I have linked describes how the disease performs in terms of its fatality rate.

The IFR of any disease is given simply by the total amount of deaths over the total (estimated) number of infections.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Asmodeus3

IFR much higher than .15 in the US and other high income nations.

www.thelancet.com...(21)02867-1/fulltext

We have discussed many times before that IFR is measured at a global level regardless of the difference of local IFRs. So there isn't any point in your comment or your attempt to present this as something that is not.

The paper shows IFR being measured by age and by country. Your belief that it is only measured at global level is demonstrably wrong.

Why would the US (or any country) base its response based on a global rate that may be much higher or lower than among its own population?

.


That's a strawman argument.
I don't have a belief that it is only measured at a global level. However the IFR is a number that shows virulent a disease is and all you have died from the disease and divided by the total number of infections to send how the disease performs.
When estimating the IFR of the Spanish Flu we didn't take local IFRs but the overall deaths divided by the overall infections.

It's very unlikely that IFR will be that much higher from one place to another. And your link doesn't seem to work.

See my edit.

Your own link says there is substantial variance.

The link still doesn't work but don't worry this is besides the point.

The global IFR for which the paper I have linked describes how the disease performs in terms of its fatality rate.

The IFR of any disease is given simply by the total amount of deaths over the total (estimated) number of infections.

Yes I know what IFR is

I also know it varies from country to country .

Your own link confirms this.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Asmodeus3

IFR much higher than .15 in the US and other high income nations.

www.thelancet.com...(21)02867-1/fulltext

We have discussed many times before that IFR is measured at a global level regardless of the difference of local IFRs. So there isn't any point in your comment or your attempt to present this as something that is not.

The paper shows IFR being measured by age and by country. Your belief that it is only measured at global level is demonstrably wrong.

Why would the US (or any country) base its response based on a global rate that may be much higher or lower than among its own population?

.


That's a strawman argument.
I don't have a belief that it is only measured at a global level. However the IFR is a number that shows virulent a disease is and all you have died from the disease and divided by the total number of infections to send how the disease performs.
When estimating the IFR of the Spanish Flu we didn't take local IFRs but the overall deaths divided by the overall infections.

It's very unlikely that IFR will be that much higher from one place to another. And your link doesn't seem to work.

See my edit.

Your own link says there is substantial variance.

The link still doesn't work but don't worry this is besides the point.

The global IFR for which the paper I have linked describes how the disease performs in terms of its fatality rate.

The IFR of any disease is given simply by the total amount of deaths over the total (estimated) number of infections.

Yes I know what IFR is

I also know it varies from country to country .

Your own link confirms this.

Good that you know what the IFR is and you agree that it is 0.15%

But in case anyone is unsure about it

IFR = total number of deaths/total (estimated) number of infections

At a global level of course.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Asmodeus3

IFR much higher than .15 in the US and other high income nations.

www.thelancet.com...(21)02867-1/fulltext

We have discussed many times before that IFR is measured at a global level regardless of the difference of local IFRs. So there isn't any point in your comment or your attempt to present this as something that is not.

The paper shows IFR being measured by age and by country. Your belief that it is only measured at global level is demonstrably wrong.

Why would the US (or any country) base its response based on a global rate that may be much higher or lower than among its own population?

.


That's a strawman argument.
I don't have a belief that it is only measured at a global level. However the IFR is a number that shows virulent a disease is and all you have died from the disease and divided by the total number of infections to send how the disease performs.
When estimating the IFR of the Spanish Flu we didn't take local IFRs but the overall deaths divided by the overall infections.

It's very unlikely that IFR will be that much higher from one place to another. And your link doesn't seem to work.

See my edit.

Your own link says there is substantial variance.

The link still doesn't work but don't worry this is besides the point.

The global IFR for which the paper I have linked describes how the disease performs in terms of its fatality rate.

The IFR of any disease is given simply by the total amount of deaths over the total (estimated) number of infections.

Yes I know what IFR is

I also know it varies from country to country .

Your own link confirms this.

Good that you know what the IFR is and you agree that it is 0.15%

But in case anyone is unsure about it

IFR = total number of deaths/total (estimated) number of infections

At a global level of course.

And back to my original point not in the US it isn't ( or other developed countries).

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Asmodeus3

IFR much higher than .15 in the US and other high income nations.

www.thelancet.com...(21)02867-1/fulltext

We have discussed many times before that IFR is measured at a global level regardless of the difference of local IFRs. So there isn't any point in your comment or your attempt to present this as something that is not.

The paper shows IFR being measured by age and by country. Your belief that it is only measured at global level is demonstrably wrong.

Why would the US (or any country) base its response based on a global rate that may be much higher or lower than among its own population?

.


That's a strawman argument.
I don't have a belief that it is only measured at a global level. However the IFR is a number that shows virulent a disease is and all you have died from the disease and divided by the total number of infections to send how the disease performs.
When estimating the IFR of the Spanish Flu we didn't take local IFRs but the overall deaths divided by the overall infections.

It's very unlikely that IFR will be that much higher from one place to another. And your link doesn't seem to work.

See my edit.

Your own link says there is substantial variance.

The link still doesn't work but don't worry this is besides the point.

The global IFR for which the paper I have linked describes how the disease performs in terms of its fatality rate.

The IFR of any disease is given simply by the total amount of deaths over the total (estimated) number of infections.

Yes I know what IFR is

I also know it varies from country to country .

Your own link confirms this.

Good that you know what the IFR is and you agree that it is 0.15%

But in case anyone is unsure about it

IFR = total number of deaths/total (estimated) number of infections

At a global level of course.

And back to my original point not in the US isn't ( or other developed countries).

The IFR of a disease and how it performs is measured at a global level. Otherwise we would have had several numbers from all geographical areas and countries and not a clue of what is going on. So we take the average.

The Spanish Flu had an IFR of 10%. How do we know this? Total number of people died was around 50 million and total number infected was around 500 million. Hence the 10%

And that's how we are making comparisons without trying to politicalize the issue.

Covid-19 isn't the Spanish Flu and regardless of how it was presented originally in the media. COVID-19 is a mild disease for most of us and its infection fatality rate doesn't justify any of the measures taken given that the young and healthy had extremely small chance of getting sick and die from Covid.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Asmodeus3

IFR much higher than .15 in the US and other high income nations.

www.thelancet.com...(21)02867-1/fulltext

We have discussed many times before that IFR is measured at a global level regardless of the difference of local IFRs. So there isn't any point in your comment or your attempt to present this as something that is not.

The paper shows IFR being measured by age and by country. Your belief that it is only measured at global level is demonstrably wrong.

Why would the US (or any country) base its response based on a global rate that may be much higher or lower than among its own population?

.


That's a strawman argument.
I don't have a belief that it is only measured at a global level. However the IFR is a number that shows virulent a disease is and all you have died from the disease and divided by the total number of infections to send how the disease performs.
When estimating the IFR of the Spanish Flu we didn't take local IFRs but the overall deaths divided by the overall infections.

It's very unlikely that IFR will be that much higher from one place to another. And your link doesn't seem to work.

See my edit.

Your own link says there is substantial variance.

The link still doesn't work but don't worry this is besides the point.

The global IFR for which the paper I have linked describes how the disease performs in terms of its fatality rate.

The IFR of any disease is given simply by the total amount of deaths over the total (estimated) number of infections.

Yes I know what IFR is

I also know it varies from country to country .

Your own link confirms this.

Good that you know what the IFR is and you agree that it is 0.15%

But in case anyone is unsure about it

IFR = total number of deaths/total (estimated) number of infections

At a global level of course.

And back to my original point not in the US isn't ( or other developed countries).

The IFR of a disease and how it performs is measured at a global level. Otherwise we would have had several numbers from all geographical areas and countries and not a clue of what is going on. So we take the average.

The Spanish Flu had an IFR of 10%. How do we know this? Total number of people died was around 50 million and total number infected was around 500 million. Hence the 10%

And that's how we are making comparisons without trying to politicalize the issue.

Covid-19 isn't the Spanish Flu and regardless of how it was presented originally in the media. COVID-19 is a mild disease for most of us and its infection fatality rate doesn't justify any of the measures taken given that the young and healthy had extremely small chance of getting sick and die from Covid.

You keep repeating that IFR is measured at global level.

When I show you its not only then you say that is not what you were saying.

You then say it again

IFR can be applied to any population. Not just globally.

The IFR for developed countries was much higher than .15%.