These COVID Statistics Are Mind Blowing

10.19.2022

The U.S. CDC is preparing to vote on if ALL SCHOOL CHILDREN must be injected with the experimental Covid-19 vaccine.

Source: townhall.com...

Closer we inch to Citizens Revolting.

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

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 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%.

Yes it is a number measured at a global level regardless of local measurements of the infection fatality rate.

The IFR of COVID-19 is 0.15%

The IFR of the Spanish Flu was 10%

It's the average we are taking.
Total number of deaths over total number of infections. Otherwise it will be misleading.

Not a good attempt to politicalize the science for once more.

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

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 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%.

Yes it is a number measured at a global level regardless of local measurements of the infection fatality rate.

The IFR of COVID-19 is 0.15%

The IFR of the Spanish Flu was 10%

It's the average we are taking.
Total number of deaths over total number of infections. Otherwise it will be misleading.

Not a good attempt to politicalize the science for once more.

It can be measured against any population.

Your own link confirms this.

The IFR in developed countries is higher.

Those are facts not politics.

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

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 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%.

Yes it is a number measured at a global level regardless of local measurements of the infection fatality rate.

The IFR of COVID-19 is 0.15%

The IFR of the Spanish Flu was 10%

It's the average we are taking.
Total number of deaths over total number of infections. Otherwise it will be misleading.

Not a good attempt to politicalize the science for once more.

It can be measured against any population.

Your own link confirms this.

The IFR in developed countries is higher.

Those are facts not politics.

Yet vaccine uptake is lower in developed countries and the covid waves and deaths were smaller. And all cause mortality isn't off the charts from the vaxx. But keep playing dumb.

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

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

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 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%.

Yes it is a number measured at a global level regardless of local measurements of the infection fatality rate.

The IFR of COVID-19 is 0.15%

The IFR of the Spanish Flu was 10%

It's the average we are taking.
Total number of deaths over total number of infections. Otherwise it will be misleading.

Not a good attempt to politicalize the science for once more.

It can be measured against any population.

Your own link confirms this.

The IFR in developed countries is higher.

Those are facts not politics.

Yet vaccine uptake is lower in developed countries and the covid waves and deaths were smaller. And all cause mortality isn't off the charts from the vaxx. But keep playing dumb.

It's IFR pre vaccine.

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

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 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%.

Yes it is a number measured at a global level regardless of local measurements of the infection fatality rate.

The IFR of COVID-19 is 0.15%

The IFR of the Spanish Flu was 10%

It's the average we are taking.
Total number of deaths over total number of infections. Otherwise it will be misleading.

Not a good attempt to politicalize the science for once more.

It can be measured against any population.

Your own link confirms this.

The IFR in developed countries is higher.

Those are facts not politics.

You forget what the definition of IFR is and why it is 0.15%

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

At a local level it could be higher in one country and lower in another one (but you forgot about this conveniently). Hence we take the average

Conclusions: 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

So you need to revise your statistics a little and see what average means.

edit on 19-10-2022 by Asmodeus3 because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-10-2022 by Asmodeus3 because: (no reason given)

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

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 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%.

Yes it is a number measured at a global level regardless of local measurements of the infection fatality rate.

The IFR of COVID-19 is 0.15%

The IFR of the Spanish Flu was 10%

It's the average we are taking.
Total number of deaths over total number of infections. Otherwise it will be misleading.

Not a good attempt to politicalize the science for once more.

It can be measured against any population.

Your own link confirms this.

The IFR in developed countries is higher.

Those are facts not politics.

You forget what the definition of IFR is and why it is 0.15%

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

At a local level it could be higher in one country and lower in another one (but you forgot about this conveniently). Hence we take the average

[quite]Conclusions: 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.

So you need to revise your statistics a little and how we find averages.

You can take an average across any population as well.

The definition doesn't change that it can measured within countries

The rate for developed countries was much higher.

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

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 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%.

Yes it is a number measured at a global level regardless of local measurements of the infection fatality rate.

The IFR of COVID-19 is 0.15%

The IFR of the Spanish Flu was 10%

It's the average we are taking.
Total number of deaths over total number of infections. Otherwise it will be misleading.

Not a good attempt to politicalize the science for once more.

It can be measured against any population.

Your own link confirms this.

The IFR in developed countries is higher.

Those are facts not politics.

You need to revise your statistics and see what we mean by average.

You can go further and look at samples, variance, standard deviation, statistical analysis, etc.

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

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 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%.

Yes it is a number measured at a global level regardless of local measurements of the infection fatality rate.

The IFR of COVID-19 is 0.15%

The IFR of the Spanish Flu was 10%

It's the average we are taking.
Total number of deaths over total number of infections. Otherwise it will be misleading.

Not a good attempt to politicalize the science for once more.

It can be measured against any population.

Your own link confirms this.

The IFR in developed countries is higher.

Those are facts not politics.

You forget what the definition of IFR is and why it is 0.15%

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

At a local level it could be higher in one country and lower in another one (but you forgot about this conveniently). Hence we take the average

[quite]Conclusions: 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.

So you need to revise your statistics a little and how we find averages.

You can take an average across any population as well.

The definition doesn't change that it can measured within countries

The rate for developed countries was much higher.

You can do what you want but the IFR of COVID-19 is 0.15%

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

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 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%.

Yes it is a number measured at a global level regardless of local measurements of the infection fatality rate.

The IFR of COVID-19 is 0.15%

The IFR of the Spanish Flu was 10%

It's the average we are taking.
Total number of deaths over total number of infections. Otherwise it will be misleading.

Not a good attempt to politicalize the science for once more.

It can be measured against any population.

Your own link confirms this.

The IFR in developed countries is higher.

Those are facts not politics.

You need to revise your statistics and see what we mean by average.

You can go further and look at samples, variance, standard deviation, statistical analysis, etc.

Wait you actually think you can't show an average across ďifferent populations?

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

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 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%.

Yes it is a number measured at a global level regardless of local measurements of the infection fatality rate.

The IFR of COVID-19 is 0.15%

The IFR of the Spanish Flu was 10%

It's the average we are taking.
Total number of deaths over total number of infections. Otherwise it will be misleading.

Not a good attempt to politicalize the science for once more.

It can be measured against any population.

Your own link confirms this.

The IFR in developed countries is higher.

Those are facts not politics.

You need to revise your statistics and see what we mean by average.

You can go further and look at samples, variance, standard deviation, statistical analysis, etc.

Want you actually think you can't show an average across ďifferent populations?

Don't worry.
Neeeeext...

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

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 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%.

Yes it is a number measured at a global level regardless of local measurements of the infection fatality rate.

The IFR of COVID-19 is 0.15%

The IFR of the Spanish Flu was 10%

It's the average we are taking.
Total number of deaths over total number of infections. Otherwise it will be misleading.

Not a good attempt to politicalize the science for once more.

It can be measured against any population.

Your own link confirms this.

The IFR in developed countries is higher.

Those are facts not politics.

You need to revise your statistics and see what we mean by average.

You can go further and look at samples, variance, standard deviation, statistical analysis, etc.

Want you actually think you can't show an average across ďifferent populations?

Don't worry.
Neeeeext...

Not an answer.

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

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

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 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%.

Yes it is a number measured at a global level regardless of local measurements of the infection fatality rate.

The IFR of COVID-19 is 0.15%

The IFR of the Spanish Flu was 10%

It's the average we are taking.
Total number of deaths over total number of infections. Otherwise it will be misleading.

Not a good attempt to politicalize the science for once more.

It can be measured against any population.

Your own link confirms this.

The IFR in developed countries is higher.

Those are facts not politics.

Yet vaccine uptake is lower in developed countries and the covid waves and deaths were smaller. And all cause mortality isn't off the charts from the vaxx. But keep playing dumb.

Most important point is that Covid-19 is a mild disease for most of us and not what it was propagated in the media.

None of the measures can be justified based on such low IFR.

Most of the estimations for IFR have been made prior to the emergence of vaccines and after many of us have had already good natural immunity.

originally posted by: whiteblack

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

They shut the world down for the flu, I don't think so.

Shut the world down to take poison jab

'poison' in the form of Quantum dot... hydro-gel.... nano carbon tube building a AI parasite in a host body...historically known as an Egregore but digitally an 'AI' parasite

dig up current info @ www.brighteon.tv
thats my source

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

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 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%.

Yes it is a number measured at a global level regardless of local measurements of the infection fatality rate.

The IFR of COVID-19 is 0.15%

The IFR of the Spanish Flu was 10%

It's the average we are taking.
Total number of deaths over total number of infections. Otherwise it will be misleading.

Not a good attempt to politicalize the science for once more.

It can be measured against any population.

Your own link confirms this.

The IFR in developed countries is higher.

Those are facts not politics.

You need to revise your statistics and see what we mean by average.

You can go further and look at samples, variance, standard deviation, statistical analysis, etc.

Want you actually think you can't show an average across ďifferent populations?

You can go anywhere you want and take averages.
Your local district/town and even down to your local pub. But sadly that won't give a true representative figure of IFR.

If you are a good statistician then you will find how many deaths have occured (globally) and how many infections (globally) and you will get the answer which is on the paper provided above, 0.15%

It's rather simple math.

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

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 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%.

Yes it is a number measured at a global level regardless of local measurements of the infection fatality rate.

The IFR of COVID-19 is 0.15%

The IFR of the Spanish Flu was 10%

It's the average we are taking.
Total number of deaths over total number of infections. Otherwise it will be misleading.

Not a good attempt to politicalize the science for once more.

It can be measured against any population.

Your own link confirms this.

The IFR in developed countries is higher.

Those are facts not politics.

You need to revise your statistics and see what we mean by average.

You can go further and look at samples, variance, standard deviation, statistical analysis, etc.

Want you actually think you can't show an average across ďifferent populations?

You can go anywhere you want and take averages.
Your local district/town and even down to your local pub. But sadly that won't give a true representative figure of IFR.

If you are a good statistician then you will find how many deaths have occured (globally) and how many infections (globally) and you will get the answer which is on the paper provided above, 0.15%

It's rather simple math.

You can measure IFR against any population. Your own link confirms this.

You don't seem to understand that concept (or how averages work).

For developed countries the IFR is higher than the global average.

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

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 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%.

Yes it is a number measured at a global level regardless of local measurements of the infection fatality rate.

The IFR of COVID-19 is 0.15%

The IFR of the Spanish Flu was 10%

It's the average we are taking.
Total number of deaths over total number of infections. Otherwise it will be misleading.

Not a good attempt to politicalize the science for once more.

It can be measured against any population.

Your own link confirms this.

The IFR in developed countries is higher.

Those are facts not politics.

You need to revise your statistics and see what we mean by average.

You can go further and look at samples, variance, standard deviation, statistical analysis, etc.

Want you actually think you can't show an average across ďifferent populations?

You can go anywhere you want and take averages.
Your local district/town and even down to your local pub. But sadly that won't give a true representative figure of IFR.

If you are a good statistician then you will find how many deaths have occured (globally) and how many infections (globally) and you will get the answer which is on the paper provided above, 0.15%

It's rather simple math.

You can measure IFR against any population. Your own link confirms this.

You don't seem to understand that concept (or how averages work).

For developed countries the IFR is higher than the global average.

The IFR is 0.15% given in the paper.
I am sure I understand this well just as anyone else who can...read!
Otherwise we would have had another number given in the conclusion. But we don't. It's that simple.

Yes you can teach us mathematics and statistics if you want. And especially averages.

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

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 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%.

Yes it is a number measured at a global level regardless of local measurements of the infection fatality rate.

The IFR of COVID-19 is 0.15%

The IFR of the Spanish Flu was 10%

It's the average we are taking.
Total number of deaths over total number of infections. Otherwise it will be misleading.

Not a good attempt to politicalize the science for once more.

It can be measured against any population.

Your own link confirms this.

The IFR in developed countries is higher.

Those are facts not politics.

You need to revise your statistics and see what we mean by average.

You can go further and look at samples, variance, standard deviation, statistical analysis, etc.

Want you actually think you can't show an average across ďifferent populations?

You can go anywhere you want and take averages.
Your local district/town and even down to your local pub. But sadly that won't give a true representative figure of IFR.

If you are a good statistician then you will find how many deaths have occured (globally) and how many infections (globally) and you will get the answer which is on the paper provided above, 0.15%

It's rather simple math.

You can measure IFR against any population. Your own link confirms this.

You don't seem to understand that concept (or how averages work).

For developed countries the IFR is higher than the global average.

The IFR is 0.15% given in the paper.
I am sure I understand this well just as anyone else who can...read!
Otherwise we would have had another number given in the conclusion. But we don't. It's that simple.

Yes you can teach us mathematics and statistics if you want. And especially averages.

The paper you linked gives a global IFR.

Different countries have different IFRs

Do you understand that?

a reply to: ScepticScot

Of course they do. You don't expect the same number of infections and deaths at every geographical area of the planet but that's not how IFR is measured. You take the average.
Here is the conclusion

Conclusions: 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%

You see? 0.15%

edit on 19-10-2022 by Asmodeus3 because: (no reason given)

This was never about a virus.
It was and still is about control nothing else!