These COVID Statistics Are Mind Blowing

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

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?

why don't you list the IFR's for the countries you wish to discuss?

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
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%

Now you clearly don't understand what an average is. An average of IFRs across countries wouldn't be accurate as it wouldn't account for population sizes.

You can work out an average or IFR against different populations it doesn't have to be against a global population.

It would make no sense for the US to make policy decisions based on an IFR that doesn't apply to its own population.

a reply to: network dude

He doesn't want to discuss IFRs of different countries. He wants to misrepresent the data and argue that Covid-19 is a much more dangerous disease than it is actually is.

The IFR of 0.15% doesn't suit his narrative.

originally posted by: Bob350
This was never about a virus.
It was and still is about control nothing else!

Control was the main objective

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
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%

Now you clearly don't understand what an average is. An average of IFRs across countries wouldn't be accurate as it wouldn't account for population sizes.

You can work out an average or IFR against different populations it doesn't have to be against a global population.

It would make no sense for the US to make policy decisions based on an IFR that doesn't apply to its own population.

That's why we use the global number of infections and the global number of deaths

Here is the conclusion again

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%

Who understands mathematics and who doesn't is another story.

The IFR is not measured against a population size. It's the simile ratio of total number of deaths to the total number of infections.

And it's 0.15%

originally posted by: network dude

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

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?

why don't you list the IFR's for the countries you wish to discuss?

The link I did earlier isn't working (sorry on phone) but for the US was circa .8 % so about 5 times higher than rate Asmodeus is referencing

a reply to: ScepticScot

Need to move away from politicalizing science or being in a state of denial.

It's clear that the IFR is 0.15% unless we all here can't read

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%

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: network dude

He doesn't want to discuss IFRs of different countries. He wants to misrepresent the data and argue that Covid-19 is a much more dangerous disease than it is actually is.

The IFR of 0.15% doesn't suit his narrative.

Misrepresentation would be claiming a global rate applies equally everywhere.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: ScepticScot

Need to move away from politicalizing science or being in a state of denial.

It's clear that the IFR is 0.15% unless we all here can't read

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%

Again not in developed countries it isn't.

Can you explain something for me please. As you know I am a mere layman.


If as you say IFR is measured by taking the data from the whole world and then adding it all together and dividing it by the number of countries to get an average then when does your quoted text refer to an average global IFR?

If it's always calculated as such then surely the "average global" part of the statement is redundant? Why does it not just say IFR?

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
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%

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: network dude

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

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?

why don't you list the IFR's for the countries you wish to discuss?

The link I did earlier isn't working (sorry on phone) but for the US was circa .8 % so about 5 times higher than rate Asmodeus is referencing

Referencing a paper about the IFR globally. As it is measured in a global level. Just as the Spanish Flu had an IFR of 10%

a reply to: ScepticScot

Wrong post

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: network dude

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

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?

why don't you list the IFR's for the countries you wish to discuss?

The link I did earlier isn't working (sorry on phone) but for the US was circa .8 % so about 5 times higher than rate Asmodeus is referencing

Referencing a paper about the IFR globally. As it is measured in a global level. Just as the Spanish Flu had an IFR of 10%

Again do you understand that the IFR will be different for the US?

And no it isn't only a global measure.

originally posted by: nonspecific
Can you explain something for me please. As you know I am a mere layman.


If as you say IFR is measured by taking the data from the whole world and then adding it all together and dividing it by the number of countries to get an average then when does your quoted text refer to an average global IFR?

If it's always calculated as such then surely the "average global" part of the statement is redundant? Why does it not just say IFR?

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
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%

The infection fatality rate is the ratio of the total number of deaths over the total (estimated) number of infections.

Here is a link with terminologies

www.clubvita.net...

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

That's what I said.

You are supposed to add a bit of your own as well.


a reply to: Asmodeus3

a reply to: nonspecific

I can't reply to the other message for some reason.
But here we go again.

The IFR is the ratio of the total number of deaths to the total number of estimated infections.

Here is a link with terminologies

www.clubvita.net...

In the case of Covid-19 is 0.15%

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Never was a viral pandemic, always was a socio-economic restructuring.

Where in that link does it say as you claim?

I can't see the nit where it's always done on a global level?

It's talks about it being calculated for a given population, that to me sounds like it's intended to be specific to a region or demographic?

Again I'm just an average bloke on the street so there's most likely something I'm getting wrong.


a reply to: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: network dude

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

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?

why don't you list the IFR's for the countries you wish to discuss?

The link I did earlier isn't working (sorry on phone) but for the US was circa .8 % so about 5 times higher than rate Asmodeus is referencing

Referencing a paper about the IFR globally. As it is measured in a global level. Just as the Spanish Flu had an IFR of 10%

Again do you understand that the IFR will be different for the US?

And no it isn't only a global measure.

The IFR of COVID-19 is 0.15% as estimated by Dr Ioannidis in his paper.

Different countries will have different number of deaths and estimated infections. That's why we take averages. US maybe above the average but other countries have to be below that average to achieve 0.15%.

Unless you want to teach us maths & stats. I am hear and listening.

A 'case' is anything 'they' say it is. LOL

a reply to: chr0naut