These COVID Statistics Are Mind Blowing

originally posted by: nonspecific
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

This was the link with terminologies.
The link with the paper I have given it several times...but once again

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

a reply to: nonspecific

To make it very simple

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

I asked where it said that IFR was always calculated globally.

This was in relation to the study using the phrase Global average IFR and the redundancy of the words global and average if IFR is always calculated globally.

If you can't answer the question then please just say so or ignore me entirely as just giving the same reply and links that do not contain the answer is a waste of time for all of us.



a reply to: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: nonspecific
I asked where it said that IFR was always calculated globally.

This was in relation to the study using the phrase Global average IFR and the redundancy of the words global and average if IFR is always calculated globally.

If you can't answer the question then please just say so or ignore me entirely as just giving the same reply and links that do not contain the answer is a waste of time for all of us.



a reply to: Asmodeus3

As far as I am concerned the IFR comes down as an average and it appears as an average just in the paper I have linked to you.

The Spanish Flu has an IFR of 10%.
That will be an average. It doesn't involve countries but the whole of the world. The estimation is simple. It has allegedly killed 50 million and infected 500 million people. Hence 10% IFR

The waste of time comes from my side as I am trying to explain a very basic concept.

No need for further exchanges.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

My original post was that that the US has a higher IFR.

You have been trying to argue against that very simple concept for about 20 posts.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Asmodeus3

My original post was that that the US has a higher IFR.

You have been trying to argue against that very simple concept for about 20 posts.

No that's not true.
Your attempt is try to present COVID-19 as something that it is not when the IFR is 0.15%

I have never used the US an an example. Only referenced the paper by Dr Ioannidis.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Look it's simple


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

IFR=0.15%

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Asmodeus3

My original post was that that the US has a higher IFR.

You have been trying to argue against that very simple concept for about 20 posts.

No that's not true.
Your attempt is try to present COVID-19 as something that it is not when the IFR is 0.15%

I have never used the US an an example. Only referenced the paper by Dr Ioannidis.

My first post poined out the IFR was higher than .15 in the US. You said IFR is a global measure and you didn't believe would vary much between country's until I pointed out your own source confirms it.

Let's make this very simple for you.

Do you understand that IFR for developed countries is higher than the global average.

Do you understand that policy responses to covid are going to be based on that countries IFR not a global measure.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Asmodeus3

My original post was that that the US has a higher IFR.

You have been trying to argue against that very simple concept for about 20 posts.

No that's not true.
Your attempt is try to present COVID-19 as something that it is not when the IFR is 0.15%

I have never used the US an an example. Only referenced the paper by Dr Ioannidis.

My first post poined out the IFR was higher than .15 in the US. You said IFR is a global measure and you didn't believe would vary much between country's until I pointed out your own source confirms it.

Let's make this very simple for you.

Do you understand that IFR for developed countries is higher than the global average.

Do you understand that policy responses to covid are going to be based on that countries IFR not a global measure.

You don't have to do anything. I am very well thank you. I understand very well Mathematics & Statistics.

IFR is indeed measured at a global level and hence presented taking the total number of deaths and the total number of estimated (infections)

The paper I linked prove this from its conclusion

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

IFR is globally estimated at 0.15%

Individuals countries will have IFR at a local level which won't be the same. There is nothing new on this and nobody expects the numbers to be homogeneous. It's the overall that shows how virulent and a disease is and how it performs.

The higher or lower infection fatality rates at local levels don't justify any of the policies taken including lockdowns and the rest. And never did.


The comparison you need to make is between different diseases.

Spanish Flu had an IFR of 10%
Covid-19 has an IFR of 0.5%

Nowhere near regardless the attempts of presenting them as the same...

I didn't know you are a mathematician too? It must have escaped me.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

Given your earlier confusion around averages I have my doubts about your understanding of mathematics and statistics.

You also do not need to keep posting the same link. I want even disputing your global figure (although other studies do put it higher)

You keep accusing others of trying to mislead when the reality is that only looking at global IFR is highly misjeading as was much higher for high income countries.

The majority of people on this site live in countries with a much higher IFR than .15%

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Given your earlier confusion around averages I have my doubts about your understanding of mathematics and statistics.

You also do not need to keep posting the same link. I want even disputing your global figure (although other studies do put it higher)

You keep accusing others of trying to mislead when the reality is that only looking at global IFR is highly misjeading as was much higher for high income countries.

The majority of people on this site live in countries with a much higher IFR than .15%

The confusion exists only in your arguments.
My arguments are crystal clear and I have linked the paper several times as repetition is vital for understanding the material.

I don't think it's my fault that your arguments are confused and as result you believe and claim others are confused when in reality the confusion comes from your part.

Once again the proper comparison should be made with other disease

Spanish Flu had an IFR of 10%
COVID-19 had an IFR of 0.15%

There is nothing misleading about stating the global infection fatality rate known as IFR.


In terms of the US a recent analysis by John Hopkins has put the CFR at 1.1%. The IFR in this case is much lower. It doesn't justify any measures and it didn't justify any measures.

coronavirus.jhu.edu...

Given you want to teach us maths I wanted to know where did you study? I am slightly confused whether this is maths or biology or both?

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.

Here is the IFR as measured at a global level

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

And it is 0.15%

No, the IFR is a 'rubbery' figure that no-one agrees on, so the hope was that by accumulating all the different IFR figures, that there will be a median value that may be close to the truth.

That may be true if you include all IFR figures, from all credible sources, but not if you cherry-pick the IFR figures, as this paper has done.

Also, here's a simple test of the 'globalness' of the IFR claimed in the paper: There were 33 source IFR figures from which their 'global' IFR was calculated. Are there only 33 countries in the world affected by COVID-19? No? Therfore, the 'global' figure must have been cherry-picked out of a much larger pool of IFR's.

For the sake of moving on the conversation let us say that the US and other developed counties made up the higher end of the IFR average. It still does not justify the fascism that took place. For that matter why would under developed countries have a lower rate? Could it be that they would actually treat the symptoms with whatever the doctor deemed viable and not be tied to a "standard of care" that would not let a doctor treat the symptoms and instead be told they would lose their medical license if they deviated from the "approved" methods? Think about it. Then think about the billions made off the approved treatments with a very dubious track record. There is no good answer here that does not have a bad smell to it.

originally posted by: chr0naut

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.

Here is the IFR as measured at a global level

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

And it is 0.15%

No, the IFR is a 'rubbery' figure that no-one agrees on, so the hope was that by accumulating all the different IFR figures, that there will be a median value that may be close to the truth.

That may be true if you include all IFR figures, from all credible sources, but not if you cherry-pick the IFR figures, as this paper has done.

What does it matter? Covid turned out more bark than bite for the average person.

Stats right from the beginning showed it to be mild, so now that stats show it might have been even lower risk it's pissing people off over the numbers, but people should be pissed that masses of taxpayer money goes to our governments and they can't keep their stats honest, upfront or their book keeping straight on gunshot victims being covid deaths or the dead receiving positive tests six months after death. That smells more like a money grab to me and usually behind it all is money for the taking. We know there are reports of hospitals receiving extra money for covid deaths so it isn't a far to imagine that deaths were mislabeled for money, stats manipulated or hidden for money, media lying for money.

Sure wasn't the average person who profited from covid but the corporations sure did. This might seem off topic but it will turn out to be the root of all the confusion.

a reply to: 25shadesofgraybeard
Similar thoughts at the same time but you said it much better.

originally posted by: chr0naut

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.

Here is the IFR as measured at a global level

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

And it is 0.15%

No, the IFR is a 'rubbery' figure that no-one agrees on, so the hope was that by accumulating all the different IFR figures, that there will be a median value that may be close to the truth.

That may be true if you include all IFR figures, from all credible sources, but not if you cherry-pick the IFR figures, as this paper has done.

The paper I have linked by Dr Ioannidis from Stanford is one of the most cited papers in the world. And his work has been published everywhere including the WHO.

Do you claim that this paper
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

has cheery-picked data? Are you serious?

You claim that nobody agrees on the IFR?
You should visit then website of the WHO to see Dr Ioannidis publications on the subject.

No you are wrong. The IFR isn't estimated using medians. It's the ratio of the total number of deaths to the total estimated number of infections

originally posted by: 25shadesofgraybeard
For the sake of moving on the conversation let us say that the US and other developed counties made up the higher end of the IFR average. It still does not justify the fascism that took place. For that matter why would under developed countries have a lower rate? Could it be that they would actually treat the symptoms with whatever the doctor deemed viable and not be tied to a "standard of care" that would not let a doctor treat the symptoms and instead be told they would lose their medical license if they deviated from the "approved" methods? Think about it. Then think about the billions made off the approved treatments with a very dubious track record. There is no good answer here that does not have a bad smell to it.

Precisely what I have said.

Although the IFR is very small regardless of the attempts to present COVID-19 as if it was the Spanish Flu.

10% for the Spanish Flu
0.15% for Covid-19

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

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.

Here is the IFR as measured at a global level

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

And it is 0.15%

No, the IFR is a 'rubbery' figure that no-one agrees on, so the hope was that by accumulating all the different IFR figures, that there will be a median value that may be close to the truth.

That may be true if you include all IFR figures, from all credible sources, but not if you cherry-pick the IFR figures, as this paper has done.

The paper I have linked by Dr Ioannidis from Stanford is one of the most cited papers in the world. And his work has been published everywhere including the WHO.

Do you claim that this paper
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

has cheery-picked data? Are you serious?

You claim that nobody agrees on the IFR?
You should visit then website of the WHO to see Dr Ioannidis publications on the subject.

No you are wrong. The IFR isn't estimated using medians. It's the ratio of the total number of deaths to the total estimated number of infections

But no-one knows the total number of unreported infections. So the estimate could be anything between the known measured and reported infections, right up to the total population. Which invalidates the IFR for the purpose you are using it.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

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.

Here is the IFR as measured at a global level

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

And it is 0.15%

No, the IFR is a 'rubbery' figure that no-one agrees on, so the hope was that by accumulating all the different IFR figures, that there will be a median value that may be close to the truth.

That may be true if you include all IFR figures, from all credible sources, but not if you cherry-pick the IFR figures, as this paper has done.

The paper I have linked by Dr Ioannidis from Stanford is one of the most cited papers in the world. And his work has been published everywhere including the WHO.

Do you claim that this paper
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

has cheery-picked data? Are you serious?

You claim that nobody agrees on the IFR?
You should visit then website of the WHO to see Dr Ioannidis publications on the subject.

No you are wrong. The IFR isn't estimated using medians. It's the ratio of the total number of deaths to the total estimated number of infections

But no-one knows the total number of unreported infections. So the estimate could be anything between the known measured and reported infections, right up to the total population. Which invalidates the IFR for the purpose you are using it.

No as the estimates have been made using statistical surveillance and seroprevalence data. That's how you get to estimate the total infections. Nothing invalidates the IFR. It only happens in your opinion and nowhere else.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Given your earlier confusion around averages I have my doubts about your understanding of mathematics and statistics.

You also do not need to keep posting the same link. I want even disputing your global figure (although other studies do put it higher)

You keep accusing others of trying to mislead when the reality is that only looking at global IFR is highly misjeading as was much higher for high income countries.

The majority of people on this site live in countries with a much higher IFR than .15%

The confusion exists only in your arguments.
My arguments are crystal clear and I have linked the paper several times as repetition is vital for understanding the material.

I don't think it's my fault that your arguments are confused and as result you believe and claim others are confused when in reality the confusion comes from your part.

Once again the proper comparison should be made with other disease

Spanish Flu had an IFR of 10%
COVID-19 had an IFR of 0.15%

There is nothing misleading about stating the global infection fatality rate known as IFR.


In terms of the US a recent analysis by John Hopkins has put the CFR at 1.1%. The IFR in this case is much lower. It doesn't justify any measures and it didn't justify any measures.

coronavirus.jhu.edu...

Given you want to teach us maths I wanted to know where did you study? I am slightly confused whether this is maths or biology or both?

I am certainly confused as to why you continually try and turn threads into a discussion about me.

I aso dont have the time, inclination nor crayons to start at the level of remedial maths your posts suggest you need.

You have argued for pages against my post which was that the US had a higher IFR. It's really that simple.

I have made no mention of Spanish flu in this thread I have merely pointed out that claiming measures were an over reaction based on .15% IFR is misleading as that is not the IFR for where the vast majority of posters live.