What is the infection fatality rate (IFR) of Covid 19 now?

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Asmodeus3

And IFR in developed countries could be ten times that rate.

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

Which seems far more relevant.

Could have been in the past in some countries. After 3 years of exposure this is very very unlikely. But the IFR on its own which was always low to start with, could have never been the main reason for lockdowns and various restrictions. These 'things' were never justified. They were political measures and not epidemiological measures and that is why they have failed.

1% IFR in the US would be three million plus deaths.

That not justifying measures might be your opinion, many others would disagree.

this cannot be stated as fact yet, but those who think a little, questioned why and how the flu was totally gone while Covid was here, and some of us, think it's possible it didn't really go away, but was lumped into the covid numbers, to make covid look like it was the deadliest thing evar. You are free to believe the official narrative as you most certainly will, but one day, you may have to look back and wonder how you were to easily led down the wrong path.

Excess deaths went up at the same time.

If Flu was repacked into covid the it would also have been the most deadly flu season in a century. Which would beg the question why not say its the flu?

One day you may have to look back and wonder why you believed irational conspiracy theories that so easily led you down the wrong path.

and what if covid was a little bad, but once coupled with flu and other illnesses that used to exist, was all called "covid". I don't need you to believe me, I just like to have the placeholder here so when and if it's as I suspect, I can use it to show you how easily led you are. And I'm a conspiracy nut, behaving like a conspiracy nut. So I don't fear any reckoning from boot lickers. I'm crazy baby.

Doesn't explain the increase in excess deaths.

It's funny however that you think it's conspiracy theorists who aren't easily led.

Wait, coupling COVID with all the nasties we usually get would not explain an increase in excess deaths?

Your DERP is moving too rapidly for your posts. Slow that DERP down.

Try thinking about that for a moment.

You might want to reallocate the DERP.

Let me know if/when you get it.

nope, been thinking on it a bit now. let's see if you can pinpoint my flaw in logic. Say 200,000 people a year die from flu, averaged over 7 years. (hypothetical numbers)
But in 2021 250,000 died from Covid and 23 died from flu.

A person such as myself would think, "after hearing how piss poor the testing was, and knowing how hard "they" wanted to to pump up the covid numbers, it looks like covid was mildly deadly, and they rebranded the flu deaths as covid."

So seeing as how you have doubled down on the DERP, it's now up to you to explain to me why that line of thinking is so far off the mark.

Good luck sport.

I said that doesn't explain excess deaths. You also said excess deaths in your reply

So to use your numbers.

200,000 people a year die from flu on average.

In 2020 they get 50,000 covid deaths and relabel the 200,000 flu deaths as covid to give you 250,000 covid deaths.

How many extra deaths are there?

A. 250,000
B. 50,000
C. Derp.


Showing your workings is optional.

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



UK 1·568%

Seems higher than the 0.15% you keep quoting.

As above. You clearly haven't understood what IFR is.

As above, again the lack of understanding is yours.

I wouldn't think so.
You clearly don't understand what IFR is and by your own admission you don't have any qualifications or experience in science and epidemiology. So make sure you don't just copy paste from links.

Unlike your qualifications which are ???

The lockdowns have been debunked by many scientists and epidemiologists.

They were never proven to be good epidemiological measures in the first place. They were asserted as such and imposed with political decisions.

No answer to what your qualifications are, despite asking what mine (or anyone who disagrees with you) are repeatedly.

Your claim they are 'debunked" is just your opinion.

By your own admission you are not an expert or have any experience in epidemiology or science. Trying to argue in matters you seem not to understand isn't a wise option. It seems you don't even know what IFR is and how it is measured.

Professor Woolhouse, Gupta, John Ioannidis, and many others, don't have just opinions. They have knowledge and it's nowhere near your unsubstantiated assertions of the the success of the lockdowns and/or on how the IFR is measured and what it is.

What are your qualifications ?

I know IFR is. You on the other hand seem to think it's a single figure.

It doesn't matter what I have.

What I find hilarious is when top scientists and experts are challenged by those who have zero qualifications on matters they have no knowledge or experience.. And the reason they are challenged is because the font peddle the official political and ideological narratives.

Yet you persist in asking for other people qualifications in multiple threads.

You only accept 'experts who agree with your own on preconceived viewpoint yet by your own logic are unqualified to judge who is correct.

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

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



UK 1·568%

Seems higher than the 0.15% you keep quoting.

As above. You clearly haven't understood what IFR is.

As above, again the lack of understanding is yours.

I wouldn't think so.
You clearly don't understand what IFR is and by your own admission you don't have any qualifications or experience in science and epidemiology. So make sure you don't just copy paste from links.

Unlike your qualifications which are ???

The lockdowns have been debunked by many scientists and epidemiologists.

They were never proven to be good epidemiological measures in the first place. They were asserted as such and imposed with political decisions.

No answer to what your qualifications are, despite asking what mine (or anyone who disagrees with you) are repeatedly.

Your claim they are 'debunked" is just your opinion.

By your own admission you are not an expert or have any experience in epidemiology or science. Trying to argue in matters you seem not to understand isn't a wise option. It seems you don't even know what IFR is and how it is measured.

Professor Woolhouse, Gupta, John Ioannidis, and many others, don't have just opinions. They have knowledge and it's nowhere near your unsubstantiated assertions of the the success of the lockdowns and/or on how the IFR is measured and what it is.

What are your qualifications ?

I know IFR is. You on the other hand seem to think it's a single figure.

It doesn't matter what I have.

What I find hilarious is when top scientists and experts are challenged by those who have zero qualifications on matters they have no knowledge or experience.. And the reason they are challenged is because the font peddle the official political and ideological narratives.

It's an appeal to authority fallacy. If a PhD peddles studies done by paid off doctors and faked trials as Pfizer has been caught doing in the past, that's better than the actual data and facts.

Yes that is exactly what Asmodeos is doing.

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



UK 1·568%

Seems higher than the 0.15% you keep quoting.

As above. You clearly haven't understood what IFR is.

As above, again the lack of understanding is yours.

I wouldn't think so.
You clearly don't understand what IFR is and by your own admission you don't have any qualifications or experience in science and epidemiology. So make sure you don't just copy paste from links.

Unlike your qualifications which are ???

The lockdowns have been debunked by many scientists and epidemiologists.

They were never proven to be good epidemiological measures in the first place. They were asserted as such and imposed with political decisions.

No answer to what your qualifications are, despite asking what mine (or anyone who disagrees with you) are repeatedly.

Your claim they are 'debunked" is just your opinion.

By your own admission you are not an expert or have any experience in epidemiology or science. Trying to argue in matters you seem not to understand isn't a wise option. It seems you don't even know what IFR is and how it is measured.

Professor Woolhouse, Gupta, John Ioannidis, and many others, don't have just opinions. They have knowledge and it's nowhere near your unsubstantiated assertions of the the success of the lockdowns and/or on how the IFR is measured and what it is.

What are your qualifications ?

I know IFR is. You on the other hand seem to think it's a single figure.

The IFR of a particular disease is a single figure. For example the IFR of the Spanish Flu was 10%
How did they estimate this? 50 million deaths over 500 million infections.

No it isn't.

IFR is specific to the population you are looking at.

You have previously posted IFR by age that shows this.

What was it you posted about quoting text you don't understand?

No it is not.

The IFR of the Spanish Flu was 10%.
That was the global average IFR and this is what described the disease.

You can give different values for different populations but in the end you need a global average figure.

Otherwise you will have several numbers associated with a particular disease.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Asmodeus3

And IFR in developed countries could be ten times that rate.

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

Which seems far more relevant.

Could have been in the past in some countries. After 3 years of exposure this is very very unlikely. But the IFR on its own which was always low to start with, could have never been the main reason for lockdowns and various restrictions. These 'things' were never justified. They were political measures and not epidemiological measures and that is why they have failed.

1% IFR in the US would be three million plus deaths.

That not justifying measures might be your opinion, many others would disagree.

this cannot be stated as fact yet, but those who think a little, questioned why and how the flu was totally gone while Covid was here, and some of us, think it's possible it didn't really go away, but was lumped into the covid numbers, to make covid look like it was the deadliest thing evar. You are free to believe the official narrative as you most certainly will, but one day, you may have to look back and wonder how you were to easily led down the wrong path.

Excess deaths went up at the same time.

If Flu was repacked into covid the it would also have been the most deadly flu season in a century. Which would beg the question why not say its the flu?

One day you may have to look back and wonder why you believed irational conspiracy theories that so easily led you down the wrong path.

and what if covid was a little bad, but once coupled with flu and other illnesses that used to exist, was all called "covid". I don't need you to believe me, I just like to have the placeholder here so when and if it's as I suspect, I can use it to show you how easily led you are. And I'm a conspiracy nut, behaving like a conspiracy nut. So I don't fear any reckoning from boot lickers. I'm crazy baby.

Doesn't explain the increase in excess deaths.

It's funny however that you think it's conspiracy theorists who aren't easily led.

Wait, coupling COVID with all the nasties we usually get would not explain an increase in excess deaths?

Your DERP is moving too rapidly for your posts. Slow that DERP down.

Try thinking about that for a moment.

You might want to reallocate the DERP.

Let me know if/when you get it.

nope, been thinking on it a bit now. let's see if you can pinpoint my flaw in logic. Say 200,000 people a year die from flu, averaged over 7 years. (hypothetical numbers)
But in 2021 250,000 died from Covid and 23 died from flu.

A person such as myself would think, "after hearing how piss poor the testing was, and knowing how hard "they" wanted to to pump up the covid numbers, it looks like covid was mildly deadly, and they rebranded the flu deaths as covid."

So seeing as how you have doubled down on the DERP, it's now up to you to explain to me why that line of thinking is so far off the mark.

Good luck sport.

I said that doesn't explain excess deaths. You also said excess deaths in your reply

So to use your numbers.

200,000 people a year die from flu on average.

In 2020 they get 50,000 covid deaths and relabel the 200,000 flu deaths as covid to give you 250,000 covid deaths.

How many extra deaths are there?

A. 250,000
B. 50,000
C. Derp.


Showing your workings is optional.

There is a number of excess deaths everywhere you look at. And these are non Covid excess deaths that cannot be explained easily as I have shown you in the article which I linked. These wonderful lockdowns must have played a role.

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



UK 1·568%

Seems higher than the 0.15% you keep quoting.

As above. You clearly haven't understood what IFR is.

As above, again the lack of understanding is yours.

I wouldn't think so.
You clearly don't understand what IFR is and by your own admission you don't have any qualifications or experience in science and epidemiology. So make sure you don't just copy paste from links.

Unlike your qualifications which are ???

The lockdowns have been debunked by many scientists and epidemiologists.

They were never proven to be good epidemiological measures in the first place. They were asserted as such and imposed with political decisions.

No answer to what your qualifications are, despite asking what mine (or anyone who disagrees with you) are repeatedly.

Your claim they are 'debunked" is just your opinion.

By your own admission you are not an expert or have any experience in epidemiology or science. Trying to argue in matters you seem not to understand isn't a wise option. It seems you don't even know what IFR is and how it is measured.

Professor Woolhouse, Gupta, John Ioannidis, and many others, don't have just opinions. They have knowledge and it's nowhere near your unsubstantiated assertions of the the success of the lockdowns and/or on how the IFR is measured and what it is.

What are your qualifications ?

I know IFR is. You on the other hand seem to think it's a single figure.

The IFR of a particular disease is a single figure. For example the IFR of the Spanish Flu was 10%
How did they estimate this? 50 million deaths over 500 million infections.

No it isn't.

IFR is specific to the population you are looking at.

You have previously posted IFR by age that shows this.

What was it you posted about quoting text you don't understand?

No it is not.

The IFR of the Spanish Flu was 10%.
That was the global average IFR and this is what described the disease.

You can give different values for different populations but at the end you need a global average figure.

Your own link gives different IFRs. Are they wrong?

IFR is specific to the population you are measuring against. A global IFR is one version , you can also have measured at country or any demographic split.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Asmodeus3

And IFR in developed countries could be ten times that rate.

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

Which seems far more relevant.

Could have been in the past in some countries. After 3 years of exposure this is very very unlikely. But the IFR on its own which was always low to start with, could have never been the main reason for lockdowns and various restrictions. These 'things' were never justified. They were political measures and not epidemiological measures and that is why they have failed.

1% IFR in the US would be three million plus deaths.

That not justifying measures might be your opinion, many others would disagree.

this cannot be stated as fact yet, but those who think a little, questioned why and how the flu was totally gone while Covid was here, and some of us, think it's possible it didn't really go away, but was lumped into the covid numbers, to make covid look like it was the deadliest thing evar. You are free to believe the official narrative as you most certainly will, but one day, you may have to look back and wonder how you were to easily led down the wrong path.

Excess deaths went up at the same time.

If Flu was repacked into covid the it would also have been the most deadly flu season in a century. Which would beg the question why not say its the flu?

One day you may have to look back and wonder why you believed irational conspiracy theories that so easily led you down the wrong path.

and what if covid was a little bad, but once coupled with flu and other illnesses that used to exist, was all called "covid". I don't need you to believe me, I just like to have the placeholder here so when and if it's as I suspect, I can use it to show you how easily led you are. And I'm a conspiracy nut, behaving like a conspiracy nut. So I don't fear any reckoning from boot lickers. I'm crazy baby.

Doesn't explain the increase in excess deaths.

It's funny however that you think it's conspiracy theorists who aren't easily led.

Wait, coupling COVID with all the nasties we usually get would not explain an increase in excess deaths?

Your DERP is moving too rapidly for your posts. Slow that DERP down.

Try thinking about that for a moment.

You might want to reallocate the DERP.

Let me know if/when you get it.

nope, been thinking on it a bit now. let's see if you can pinpoint my flaw in logic. Say 200,000 people a year die from flu, averaged over 7 years. (hypothetical numbers)
But in 2021 250,000 died from Covid and 23 died from flu.

A person such as myself would think, "after hearing how piss poor the testing was, and knowing how hard "they" wanted to to pump up the covid numbers, it looks like covid was mildly deadly, and they rebranded the flu deaths as covid."

So seeing as how you have doubled down on the DERP, it's now up to you to explain to me why that line of thinking is so far off the mark.

Good luck sport.

I said that doesn't explain excess deaths. You also said excess deaths in your reply

So to use your numbers.

200,000 people a year die from flu on average.

In 2020 they get 50,000 covid deaths and relabel the 200,000 flu deaths as covid to give you 250,000 covid deaths.

How many extra deaths are there?

A. 250,000
B. 50,000
C. Derp.


Showing your workings is optional.

There is a number of excess deaths everywhere you look at. And these are non Covid excess deaths that cannot be explained easily as I have shown you in the article which I linked. These wonderful lockdowns must have played a role.

Has nothing to do with what Network and I were discussing.

a reply to: ScepticScot

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

Average global IFR of 0.15%

And that is what describes a disease.


Yes you can give different values for different age groups and different populations. You are allowed to do so in order to see how deadly a virus is within a given population and an age group. But you need a global average which describes the disease. I think this is straight forward.

The Spanish Flu for example killed 50 million people and infected 500 million people so it has an IFR of 10%.

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



UK 1·568%

Seems higher than the 0.15% you keep quoting.

As above. You clearly haven't understood what IFR is.

As above, again the lack of understanding is yours.

I wouldn't think so.
You clearly don't understand what IFR is and by your own admission you don't have any qualifications or experience in science and epidemiology. So make sure you don't just copy paste from links.

Unlike your qualifications which are ???

The lockdowns have been debunked by many scientists and epidemiologists.

They were never proven to be good epidemiological measures in the first place. They were asserted as such and imposed with political decisions.

No answer to what your qualifications are, despite asking what mine (or anyone who disagrees with you) are repeatedly.

Your claim they are 'debunked" is just your opinion.

By your own admission you are not an expert or have any experience in epidemiology or science. Trying to argue in matters you seem not to understand isn't a wise option. It seems you don't even know what IFR is and how it is measured.

Professor Woolhouse, Gupta, John Ioannidis, and many others, don't have just opinions. They have knowledge and it's nowhere near your unsubstantiated assertions of the the success of the lockdowns and/or on how the IFR is measured and what it is.

What are your qualifications ?

I know IFR is. You on the other hand seem to think it's a single figure.

The IFR of a particular disease is a single figure. For example the IFR of the Spanish Flu was 10%
How did they estimate this? 50 million deaths over 500 million infections.

No it isn't.

IFR is specific to the population you are looking at.

You have previously posted IFR by age that shows this.

What was it you posted about quoting text you don't understand?

No it is not.

The IFR of the Spanish Flu was 10%.
That was the global average IFR and this is what described the disease.

You can give different values for different populations but at the end you need a global average figure.

Your own link gives different IFRs. Are they wrong?

IFR is specific to the population you are measuring against. A global IFR is one version , you can also have measured at country or any demographic split.

Don't try to play it dumb.

The Spanish Flu for example killed 50 million people and infected 500 million people so it has an IFR of 10%.

You can give different values for different populations but in the end you need a global average figure.

Otherwise you will have several numbers associated with a particular disease.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: ScepticScot

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

Average global IFR of 0.15%

And that is what describes a disease.


Yes you can give different values for different age groups and different populations. You are allowed to do so in order to see how deadly a virus is within a given population and an age group. But you need a global average which describes the disease. I think this is straight forward.

The Spanish Flu for example killed 50 million people and infected 500 million people so it has an IFR of 10%.

Well done you have now acknowledged that there is more than one IFR.

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



UK 1·568%

Seems higher than the 0.15% you keep quoting.

As above. You clearly haven't understood what IFR is.

As above, again the lack of understanding is yours.

I wouldn't think so.
You clearly don't understand what IFR is and by your own admission you don't have any qualifications or experience in science and epidemiology. So make sure you don't just copy paste from links.

Unlike your qualifications which are ???

The lockdowns have been debunked by many scientists and epidemiologists.

They were never proven to be good epidemiological measures in the first place. They were asserted as such and imposed with political decisions.

No answer to what your qualifications are, despite asking what mine (or anyone who disagrees with you) are repeatedly.

Your claim they are 'debunked" is just your opinion.

By your own admission you are not an expert or have any experience in epidemiology or science. Trying to argue in matters you seem not to understand isn't a wise option. It seems you don't even know what IFR is and how it is measured.

Professor Woolhouse, Gupta, John Ioannidis, and many others, don't have just opinions. They have knowledge and it's nowhere near your unsubstantiated assertions of the the success of the lockdowns and/or on how the IFR is measured and what it is.

What are your qualifications ?

I know IFR is. You on the other hand seem to think it's a single figure.

The IFR of a particular disease is a single figure. For example the IFR of the Spanish Flu was 10%
How did they estimate this? 50 million deaths over 500 million infections.

No it isn't.

IFR is specific to the population you are looking at.

You have previously posted IFR by age that shows this.

What was it you posted about quoting text you don't understand?

No it is not.

The IFR of the Spanish Flu was 10%.
That was the global average IFR and this is what described the disease.

You can give different values for different populations but at the end you need a global average figure.

Your own link gives different IFRs. Are they wrong?

IFR is specific to the population you are measuring against. A global IFR is one version , you can also have measured at country or any demographic split.

Don't try to play it dumb.

The Spanish Flu for example killed 50 million people and infected 500 million people so it has an IFR of 10%.

You can give different values for different populations but in the end you need a global average figure.

Otherwise you will have several numbers associated with a particular disease.

There are different numbers associated with a particular disease. Pretty much every disease.

That is the point.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: ScepticScot

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

Average global IFR of 0.15%

And that is what describes a disease.


Yes you can give different values for different age groups and different populations. You are allowed to do so in order to see how deadly a virus is within a given population and an age group. But you need a global average which describes the disease. I think this is straight forward.

The Spanish Flu for example killed 50 million people and infected 500 million people so it has an IFR of 10%.

Well done you have now acknowledged that there is more than one IFR.

There is only one number that describes how deadly a disease is and this is the global average IFR not local IFRs or IFR over age group. These are used to see how deadly a disease is between different populations and different age groups.

The Spanish Flu has an IFR of 10%.
So you see several numbers there? It's the global average IFR

Your statement above is disingenuous as I have used IFR per age group in many of my threads.

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



UK 1·568%

Seems higher than the 0.15% you keep quoting.

As above. You clearly haven't understood what IFR is.

As above, again the lack of understanding is yours.

I wouldn't think so.
You clearly don't understand what IFR is and by your own admission you don't have any qualifications or experience in science and epidemiology. So make sure you don't just copy paste from links.

Unlike your qualifications which are ???

The lockdowns have been debunked by many scientists and epidemiologists.

They were never proven to be good epidemiological measures in the first place. They were asserted as such and imposed with political decisions.

No answer to what your qualifications are, despite asking what mine (or anyone who disagrees with you) are repeatedly.

Your claim they are 'debunked" is just your opinion.

By your own admission you are not an expert or have any experience in epidemiology or science. Trying to argue in matters you seem not to understand isn't a wise option. It seems you don't even know what IFR is and how it is measured.

Professor Woolhouse, Gupta, John Ioannidis, and many others, don't have just opinions. They have knowledge and it's nowhere near your unsubstantiated assertions of the the success of the lockdowns and/or on how the IFR is measured and what it is.

What are your qualifications ?

I know IFR is. You on the other hand seem to think it's a single figure.

The IFR of a particular disease is a single figure. For example the IFR of the Spanish Flu was 10%
How did they estimate this? 50 million deaths over 500 million infections.

No it isn't.

IFR is specific to the population you are looking at.

You have previously posted IFR by age that shows this.

What was it you posted about quoting text you don't understand?

No it is not.

The IFR of the Spanish Flu was 10%.
That was the global average IFR and this is what described the disease.

You can give different values for different populations but at the end you need a global average figure.

Your own link gives different IFRs. Are they wrong?

IFR is specific to the population you are measuring against. A global IFR is one version , you can also have measured at country or any demographic split.

Don't try to play it dumb.

The Spanish Flu for example killed 50 million people and infected 500 million people so it has an IFR of 10%.

You can give different values for different populations but in the end you need a global average figure.

Otherwise you will have several numbers associated with a particular disease.

There are different numbers associated with a particular disease. Pretty much every disease.

That is the point.

The only number they describes how deadly a disease is always given by the global average IFR.

No. The point you are trying to make is to relate IFR to lockdowns because in a given area or age group it might appear or be higher.

As if lockdowns were effective epidemiological measures or have been proven to be effective. They were imposed with political mandates. And have been debunked by several scientists including Dr John Ioannidis which has estimated the IFR of COVID-19 to be 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

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Asmodeus3



UK 1·568%

Seems higher than the 0.15% you keep quoting.

As above. You clearly haven't understood what IFR is.

As above, again the lack of understanding is yours.

I wouldn't think so.
You clearly don't understand what IFR is and by your own admission you don't have any qualifications or experience in science and epidemiology. So make sure you don't just copy paste from links.

Unlike your qualifications which are ???

The lockdowns have been debunked by many scientists and epidemiologists.

They were never proven to be good epidemiological measures in the first place. They were asserted as such and imposed with political decisions.

No answer to what your qualifications are, despite asking what mine (or anyone who disagrees with you) are repeatedly.

Your claim they are 'debunked" is just your opinion.

By your own admission you are not an expert or have any experience in epidemiology or science. Trying to argue in matters you seem not to understand isn't a wise option. It seems you don't even know what IFR is and how it is measured.

Professor Woolhouse, Gupta, John Ioannidis, and many others, don't have just opinions. They have knowledge and it's nowhere near your unsubstantiated assertions of the the success of the lockdowns and/or on how the IFR is measured and what it is.

What are your qualifications ?

I know IFR is. You on the other hand seem to think it's a single figure.

The IFR of a particular disease is a single figure. For example the IFR of the Spanish Flu was 10%
How did they estimate this? 50 million deaths over 500 million infections.

No it isn't.

IFR is specific to the population you are looking at.

You have previously posted IFR by age that shows this.

What was it you posted about quoting text you don't understand?

No it is not.

The IFR of the Spanish Flu was 10%.
That was the global average IFR and this is what described the disease.

You can give different values for different populations but at the end you need a global average figure.

Your own link gives different IFRs. Are they wrong?

IFR is specific to the population you are measuring against. A global IFR is one version , you can also have measured at country or any demographic split.

Don't try to play it dumb.

The Spanish Flu for example killed 50 million people and infected 500 million people so it has an IFR of 10%.

You can give different values for different populations but in the end you need a global average figure.

Otherwise you will have several numbers associated with a particular disease.

There are different numbers associated with a particular disease. Pretty much every disease.

That is the point.

The only number they describes how deadly a disease is always given by the global average IFR.

No. The point you are trying to make is to relate IFR to lockdowns because in a given area or age group it might appear or be higher.

As if lockdowns were effective epidemiological measures or have been proven to be effective. They were imposed with political mandates. And have been debunked by several scientists including Dr John Ioannidis which has estimated the IFR of COVID-19 to be 0.15%

Your point isnt even coherent anymore.

You acknowledge IFR varies by population yet think only the global IFR is ever used.

Countries base policy on their own demographics, not global ones.

a reply to: ScepticScot

So to make it clear again as you don't seem or don't want to understand this issue.

The number that describes how deadly a disease is, is given by the global average IFR. And not by local IFRs or IFRs by age group.

Is that simple.

Hence the IFR of Spanish Flu was 10%
And the IFR of Covid-19 was 0.15%

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



UK 1·568%

Seems higher than the 0.15% you keep quoting.

As above. You clearly haven't understood what IFR is.

As above, again the lack of understanding is yours.

I wouldn't think so.
You clearly don't understand what IFR is and by your own admission you don't have any qualifications or experience in science and epidemiology. So make sure you don't just copy paste from links.

Unlike your qualifications which are ???

The lockdowns have been debunked by many scientists and epidemiologists.

They were never proven to be good epidemiological measures in the first place. They were asserted as such and imposed with political decisions.

No answer to what your qualifications are, despite asking what mine (or anyone who disagrees with you) are repeatedly.

Your claim they are 'debunked" is just your opinion.

By your own admission you are not an expert or have any experience in epidemiology or science. Trying to argue in matters you seem not to understand isn't a wise option. It seems you don't even know what IFR is and how it is measured.

Professor Woolhouse, Gupta, John Ioannidis, and many others, don't have just opinions. They have knowledge and it's nowhere near your unsubstantiated assertions of the the success of the lockdowns and/or on how the IFR is measured and what it is.

What are your qualifications ?

I know IFR is. You on the other hand seem to think it's a single figure.

The IFR of a particular disease is a single figure. For example the IFR of the Spanish Flu was 10%
How did they estimate this? 50 million deaths over 500 million infections.

No it isn't.

IFR is specific to the population you are looking at.

You have previously posted IFR by age that shows this.

What was it you posted about quoting text you don't understand?

No it is not.

The IFR of the Spanish Flu was 10%.
That was the global average IFR and this is what described the disease.

You can give different values for different populations but at the end you need a global average figure.

Your own link gives different IFRs. Are they wrong?

IFR is specific to the population you are measuring against. A global IFR is one version , you can also have measured at country or any demographic split.

Don't try to play it dumb.

The Spanish Flu for example killed 50 million people and infected 500 million people so it has an IFR of 10%.

You can give different values for different populations but in the end you need a global average figure.

Otherwise you will have several numbers associated with a particular disease.

There are different numbers associated with a particular disease. Pretty much every disease.

That is the point.

The only number they describes how deadly a disease is always given by the global average IFR.

No. The point you are trying to make is to relate IFR to lockdowns because in a given area or age group it might appear or be higher.

As if lockdowns were effective epidemiological measures or have been proven to be effective. They were imposed with political mandates. And have been debunked by several scientists including Dr John Ioannidis which has estimated the IFR of COVID-19 to be 0.15%

Your point isnt even coherent anymore.

You acknowledge IFR varies by population yet think only the global IFR is ever used.

Countries base policy on their own demographics, not global ones.

No you are making a strawman argument

The number that describes how deadly a disease is, is given by the global average IFR. And not by local IFRs or IFRs by age group.

Is that simple.

Hence the IFR of Spanish Flu was 10%
And the IFR of Covid-19 was 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

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Asmodeus3



UK 1·568%

Seems higher than the 0.15% you keep quoting.

As above. You clearly haven't understood what IFR is.

As above, again the lack of understanding is yours.

I wouldn't think so.
You clearly don't understand what IFR is and by your own admission you don't have any qualifications or experience in science and epidemiology. So make sure you don't just copy paste from links.

Unlike your qualifications which are ???

The lockdowns have been debunked by many scientists and epidemiologists.

They were never proven to be good epidemiological measures in the first place. They were asserted as such and imposed with political decisions.

No answer to what your qualifications are, despite asking what mine (or anyone who disagrees with you) are repeatedly.

Your claim they are 'debunked" is just your opinion.

By your own admission you are not an expert or have any experience in epidemiology or science. Trying to argue in matters you seem not to understand isn't a wise option. It seems you don't even know what IFR is and how it is measured.

Professor Woolhouse, Gupta, John Ioannidis, and many others, don't have just opinions. They have knowledge and it's nowhere near your unsubstantiated assertions of the the success of the lockdowns and/or on how the IFR is measured and what it is.

What are your qualifications ?

I know IFR is. You on the other hand seem to think it's a single figure.

The IFR of a particular disease is a single figure. For example the IFR of the Spanish Flu was 10%
How did they estimate this? 50 million deaths over 500 million infections.

No it isn't.

IFR is specific to the population you are looking at.

You have previously posted IFR by age that shows this.

What was it you posted about quoting text you don't understand?

No it is not.

The IFR of the Spanish Flu was 10%.
That was the global average IFR and this is what described the disease.

You can give different values for different populations but at the end you need a global average figure.

Your own link gives different IFRs. Are they wrong?

IFR is specific to the population you are measuring against. A global IFR is one version , you can also have measured at country or any demographic split.

Don't try to play it dumb.

The Spanish Flu for example killed 50 million people and infected 500 million people so it has an IFR of 10%.

You can give different values for different populations but in the end you need a global average figure.

Otherwise you will have several numbers associated with a particular disease.

There are different numbers associated with a particular disease. Pretty much every disease.

That is the point.

The only number they describes how deadly a disease is always given by the global average IFR.

No. The point you are trying to make is to relate IFR to lockdowns because in a given area or age group it might appear or be higher.

As if lockdowns were effective epidemiological measures or have been proven to be effective. They were imposed with political mandates. And have been debunked by several scientists including Dr John Ioannidis which has estimated the IFR of COVID-19 to be 0.15%

Your point isnt even coherent anymore.

You acknowledge IFR varies by population yet think only the global IFR is ever used.

Countries base policy on their own demographics, not global ones.

No you are making a strawman argument

The number that describes how deadly a disease is, is given by the global average IFR. And not by local IFRs or IFRs by age group.

Is that simple.

Hence the IFR of Spanish Flu was 10%
And the IFR of Covid-19 was 0.15%

Simple but also irrelevant.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Asmodeus3

And IFR in developed countries could be ten times that rate.

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

Which seems far more relevant.

Could have been in the past in some countries. After 3 years of exposure this is very very unlikely. But the IFR on its own which was always low to start with, could have never been the main reason for lockdowns and various restrictions. These 'things' were never justified. They were political measures and not epidemiological measures and that is why they have failed.

1% IFR in the US would be three million plus deaths.

That not justifying measures might be your opinion, many others would disagree.

this cannot be stated as fact yet, but those who think a little, questioned why and how the flu was totally gone while Covid was here, and some of us, think it's possible it didn't really go away, but was lumped into the covid numbers, to make covid look like it was the deadliest thing evar. You are free to believe the official narrative as you most certainly will, but one day, you may have to look back and wonder how you were to easily led down the wrong path.

Excess deaths went up at the same time.

If Flu was repacked into covid the it would also have been the most deadly flu season in a century. Which would beg the question why not say its the flu?

One day you may have to look back and wonder why you believed irational conspiracy theories that so easily led you down the wrong path.

and what if covid was a little bad, but once coupled with flu and other illnesses that used to exist, was all called "covid". I don't need you to believe me, I just like to have the placeholder here so when and if it's as I suspect, I can use it to show you how easily led you are. And I'm a conspiracy nut, behaving like a conspiracy nut. So I don't fear any reckoning from boot lickers. I'm crazy baby.

Doesn't explain the increase in excess deaths.

It's funny however that you think it's conspiracy theorists who aren't easily led.

Wait, coupling COVID with all the nasties we usually get would not explain an increase in excess deaths?

Your DERP is moving too rapidly for your posts. Slow that DERP down.

Try thinking about that for a moment.

You might want to reallocate the DERP.

Let me know if/when you get it.

nope, been thinking on it a bit now. let's see if you can pinpoint my flaw in logic. Say 200,000 people a year die from flu, averaged over 7 years. (hypothetical numbers)
But in 2021 250,000 died from Covid and 23 died from flu.

A person such as myself would think, "after hearing how piss poor the testing was, and knowing how hard "they" wanted to to pump up the covid numbers, it looks like covid was mildly deadly, and they rebranded the flu deaths as covid."

So seeing as how you have doubled down on the DERP, it's now up to you to explain to me why that line of thinking is so far off the mark.

Good luck sport.

I said that doesn't explain excess deaths. You also said excess deaths in your reply

So to use your numbers.

200,000 people a year die from flu on average.

In 2020 they get 50,000 covid deaths and relabel the 200,000 flu deaths as covid to give you 250,000 covid deaths.

How many extra deaths are there?

A. 250,000
B. 50,000
C. Derp.


Showing your workings is optional.

50,000

Your point evades me. Explain it like you are 8 years old.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Asmodeus3

And IFR in developed countries could be ten times that rate.

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

Which seems far more relevant.

Could have been in the past in some countries. After 3 years of exposure this is very very unlikely. But the IFR on its own which was always low to start with, could have never been the main reason for lockdowns and various restrictions. These 'things' were never justified. They were political measures and not epidemiological measures and that is why they have failed.

1% IFR in the US would be three million plus deaths.

That not justifying measures might be your opinion, many others would disagree.

this cannot be stated as fact yet, but those who think a little, questioned why and how the flu was totally gone while Covid was here, and some of us, think it's possible it didn't really go away, but was lumped into the covid numbers, to make covid look like it was the deadliest thing evar. You are free to believe the official narrative as you most certainly will, but one day, you may have to look back and wonder how you were to easily led down the wrong path.

Excess deaths went up at the same time.

If Flu was repacked into covid the it would also have been the most deadly flu season in a century. Which would beg the question why not say its the flu?

One day you may have to look back and wonder why you believed irational conspiracy theories that so easily led you down the wrong path.

and what if covid was a little bad, but once coupled with flu and other illnesses that used to exist, was all called "covid". I don't need you to believe me, I just like to have the placeholder here so when and if it's as I suspect, I can use it to show you how easily led you are. And I'm a conspiracy nut, behaving like a conspiracy nut. So I don't fear any reckoning from boot lickers. I'm crazy baby.

Doesn't explain the increase in excess deaths.

It's funny however that you think it's conspiracy theorists who aren't easily led.

Wait, coupling COVID with all the nasties we usually get would not explain an increase in excess deaths?

Your DERP is moving too rapidly for your posts. Slow that DERP down.

Try thinking about that for a moment.

You might want to reallocate the DERP.

Let me know if/when you get it.

nope, been thinking on it a bit now. let's see if you can pinpoint my flaw in logic. Say 200,000 people a year die from flu, averaged over 7 years. (hypothetical numbers)
But in 2021 250,000 died from Covid and 23 died from flu.

A person such as myself would think, "after hearing how piss poor the testing was, and knowing how hard "they" wanted to to pump up the covid numbers, it looks like covid was mildly deadly, and they rebranded the flu deaths as covid."

So seeing as how you have doubled down on the DERP, it's now up to you to explain to me why that line of thinking is so far off the mark.

Good luck sport.

I said that doesn't explain excess deaths. You also said excess deaths in your reply

So to use your numbers.

200,000 people a year die from flu on average.

In 2020 they get 50,000 covid deaths and relabel the 200,000 flu deaths as covid to give you 250,000 covid deaths.

How many extra deaths are there?

A. 250,000
B. 50,000
C. Derp.


Showing your workings is optional.

50,000

Your point evades me. Explain it link you are 8 years old.

Here is what you said.

Wait, coupling COVID with all the nasties we usually get would not explain an increase in excess deaths?

Now I take it from your correct answer above you get that rebranding flu as covid doesn't actually increase excess deaths?

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Asmodeus3

And IFR in developed countries could be ten times that rate.

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

Which seems far more relevant.

Could have been in the past in some countries. After 3 years of exposure this is very very unlikely. But the IFR on its own which was always low to start with, could have never been the main reason for lockdowns and various restrictions. These 'things' were never justified. They were political measures and not epidemiological measures and that is why they have failed.

1% IFR in the US would be three million plus deaths.

That not justifying measures might be your opinion, many others would disagree.

this cannot be stated as fact yet, but those who think a little, questioned why and how the flu was totally gone while Covid was here, and some of us, think it's possible it didn't really go away, but was lumped into the covid numbers, to make covid look like it was the deadliest thing evar. You are free to believe the official narrative as you most certainly will, but one day, you may have to look back and wonder how you were to easily led down the wrong path.

Excess deaths went up at the same time.

If Flu was repacked into covid the it would also have been the most deadly flu season in a century. Which would beg the question why not say its the flu?

One day you may have to look back and wonder why you believed irational conspiracy theories that so easily led you down the wrong path.

and what if covid was a little bad, but once coupled with flu and other illnesses that used to exist, was all called "covid". I don't need you to believe me, I just like to have the placeholder here so when and if it's as I suspect, I can use it to show you how easily led you are. And I'm a conspiracy nut, behaving like a conspiracy nut. So I don't fear any reckoning from boot lickers. I'm crazy baby.

Doesn't explain the increase in excess deaths.

It's funny however that you think it's conspiracy theorists who aren't easily led.

Wait, coupling COVID with all the nasties we usually get would not explain an increase in excess deaths?

Your DERP is moving too rapidly for your posts. Slow that DERP down.

Try thinking about that for a moment.

You might want to reallocate the DERP.

Let me know if/when you get it.

nope, been thinking on it a bit now. let's see if you can pinpoint my flaw in logic. Say 200,000 people a year die from flu, averaged over 7 years. (hypothetical numbers)
But in 2021 250,000 died from Covid and 23 died from flu.

A person such as myself would think, "after hearing how piss poor the testing was, and knowing how hard "they" wanted to to pump up the covid numbers, it looks like covid was mildly deadly, and they rebranded the flu deaths as covid."

So seeing as how you have doubled down on the DERP, it's now up to you to explain to me why that line of thinking is so far off the mark.

Good luck sport.

I said that doesn't explain excess deaths. You also said excess deaths in your reply

So to use your numbers.

200,000 people a year die from flu on average.

In 2020 they get 50,000 covid deaths and relabel the 200,000 flu deaths as covid to give you 250,000 covid deaths.

How many extra deaths are there?

A. 250,000
B. 50,000
C. Derp.


Showing your workings is optional.

50,000

Your point evades me. Explain it link you are 8 years old.

Here is what you said.

Wait, coupling COVID with all the nasties we usually get would not explain an increase in excess deaths?

Now I take it from your correct answer above you get that rebranding flu as covid doesn't actually increase excess deaths?

astounding epic fail. Kudos for that. I explained it the same way several times, it just took you several tries to comprehend it, and you smugly thought you had some kind of win because of it. Typical for you. Thanks for providing the DERP yet again.

rebranding the flu as covid makes the 50,000 covid deaths look like 250,000 covid deaths, all while thinking the world won't notice the flu deaths went away. Again, DERP. Ill petition for a crayon font for our next meeting.