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

a reply to: ScepticScot

and I thought keeping to the little piggies would clear this up. Oh well.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: ScepticScot

and I thought keeping to the little piggies would clear this up. Oh well.

Sorry your pet theory falls apart on inspection.

I am confident you will get over it.

a reply to: ScepticScot

when you started to argue that covid didn't cause excess deaths, you lost me. I don't claim to be smart, but you aren't showing you have the goods here.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: ScepticScot

when you started to argue that covid didn't cause excess deaths, you lost me. I don't claim to be smart, but you aren't showing you have the goods here.

Since I never said that's its no wonder you are confused.

Don't be bitter your flu theory doesn't make sense, I am sure you will come with something new to hang your tinfoil hat on.

a reply to: ScepticScot

www.abovetopsecret.com...


I said:

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 you responded:

Doesn't explain the increase in excess deaths.

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

so it appears you don't even understand you.

I knew you would come for the last word. You should re-read your replies here and perhaps get a grasp on what you mean to say.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: ScepticScot

www.abovetopsecret.com...


I said:

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 you responded:

Doesn't explain the increase in excess deaths.

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

so it appears you don't even understand you.

I knew you would come for the last word. You should re-read your replies here and perhaps get a grasp on what you mean to say.

Because that doesn't explain the level of exvess deaths The point we have been talking about this time

There wasn't a 'little bad' increase in excess deaths and the a bigger number of covid deaths. Reclassified Flu deaths as covid not only doesn't make any sense it is slso completely inconsistent with the reality of what happened.

a reply to: ScepticScot

if flu numbers remained consistent, you would be right. they did not, and you aren't.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: ScepticScot

if flu numbers remained consistent, you would be right. they did not, and you aren't.

That makes zero sense.

Flu to inflate covid numbers would mean excess deaths as less than covid deaths. It was the otherway round.

a reply to: ScepticScot

You seem to want to divert and drift from the main conversation.

Look at the question posed in the opening page.
Let me repeat what the question is:

[b,]What is the infection fatality rate (IFR) of Covid 19 now?

So the member who has posted the question expects a specific number and not a range of numbers in different States or different countries or different age groups. He/she certainly doesn't seem to try to politicalize the issue.

So what is expected is a specific number. And what number is this? That's very simple to answer. The global average infection fatality rate.

The global average infection fatality rate was according to Dr John Ioannidis from Stanford around 0.15% when it was estimated before the vaccines were made available.

Now the global average infection fatality rate is expected to be lower and even much lower given the immunity in the population after exposure to the virus for more than 3 years.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: ScepticScot

You seem to want to divert and drift from the main conversation.

Look at the question posed in the opening page.
Let me repeat what the question is:

[b,]What is the infection fatality rate (IFR) of Covid 19 now?

So the member who has posted the question expects a specific number and not a range of numbers in different States or different countries or different age groups. He/she certainly doesn't seem to try to politicalize the issue.

So what is expected is a specific number. And what number is this? That's very simple to answer. The global average infection fatality rate.

The global average infection fatality rate was according to Dr John Ioannidis from Stanford around 0.15% when it was estimated before the vaccines were made available.

Now the global average infection fatality rate is expected to be lower and even much lower given the immunity in the population after exposure to the virus for more than 3 years.

Divert like bringing up spanish flu continually?

Current IFR is probably pretty low due to dominant strains, previous infections and vaccination.

We still continue to get covid deaths so it's not completely negligible.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: ScepticScot

You seem to want to divert and drift from the main conversation.

Look at the question posed in the opening page.
Let me repeat what the question is:

[b,]What is the infection fatality rate (IFR) of Covid 19 now?

So the member who has posted the question expects a specific number and not a range of numbers in different States or different countries or different age groups. He/she certainly doesn't seem to try to politicalize the issue.

So what is expected is a specific number. And what number is this? That's very simple to answer. The global average infection fatality rate.

The global average infection fatality rate was according to Dr John Ioannidis from Stanford around 0.15% when it was estimated before the vaccines were made available.

Now the global average infection fatality rate is expected to be lower and even much lower given the immunity in the population after exposure to the virus for more than 3 years.

Divert like bringing up spanish flu continually?

Current IFR is probably pretty low due to dominant strains, previous infections and vaccination.

We still continue to get covid deaths so it's not completely negligible.

Your post is disingenuous.
I don't think it's irrelevant to compare the IFR of the Spanish Flu with the IFR of Covid-19 given also that you had an issue with the global average infection fatality rate due to ideological and political reasons i.e you wanted to justify the lockdowns.

Spanish Flu IFR = 10%
Covid-19 IFR = 0.15%

Just to get a perspective.

It's obviously lower now.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: ScepticScot

You seem to want to divert and drift from the main conversation.

Look at the question posed in the opening page.
Let me repeat what the question is:

[b,]What is the infection fatality rate (IFR) of Covid 19 now?

So the member who has posted the question expects a specific number and not a range of numbers in different States or different countries or different age groups. He/she certainly doesn't seem to try to politicalize the issue.

So what is expected is a specific number. And what number is this? That's very simple to answer. The global average infection fatality rate.

The global average infection fatality rate was according to Dr John Ioannidis from Stanford around 0.15% when it was estimated before the vaccines were made available.

Now the global average infection fatality rate is expected to be lower and even much lower given the immunity in the population after exposure to the virus for more than 3 years.

Divert like bringing up spanish flu continually?

Current IFR is probably pretty low due to dominant strains, previous infections and vaccination.

We still continue to get covid deaths so it's not completely negligible.

Your post is disingenuous.
I don't think it's irrelevant to compare the IFR of the Spanish Flu with the IFR of Covid-19 given also that you had an issue with the global average infection fatality rate due to ideological and political reasons i.e you wanted to justify the lockdowns.

Spanish Flu IFR = 10%
Covid-19 IFR = 0.15%

Just to get a perspective.

It's obviously lower now.

A new study shows the pre vaccination IFR is 0.03% to 0.07% in age 50-65 age groups which is far lower than what was reported and nothing like the nonsense septic scot is posting.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: ScepticScot

You seem to want to divert and drift from the main conversation.

Look at the question posed in the opening page.
Let me repeat what the question is:

[b,]What is the infection fatality rate (IFR) of Covid 19 now?

So the member who has posted the question expects a specific number and not a range of numbers in different States or different countries or different age groups. He/she certainly doesn't seem to try to politicalize the issue.

So what is expected is a specific number. And what number is this? That's very simple to answer. The global average infection fatality rate.

The global average infection fatality rate was according to Dr John Ioannidis from Stanford around 0.15% when it was estimated before the vaccines were made available.

Now the global average infection fatality rate is expected to be lower and even much lower given the immunity in the population after exposure to the virus for more than 3 years.

Divert like bringing up spanish flu continually?

Current IFR is probably pretty low due to dominant strains, previous infections and vaccination.

We still continue to get covid deaths so it's not completely negligible.

Your post is disingenuous.
I don't think it's irrelevant to compare the IFR of the Spanish Flu with the IFR of Covid-19 given also that you had an issue with the global average infection fatality rate due to ideological and political reasons i.e you wanted to justify the lockdowns.

Spanish Flu IFR = 10%
Covid-19 IFR = 0.15%

Just to get a perspective.

It's obviously lower now.

Only it isnt obvious it was .15% to begin with as other studies give higher figures and Ionnandis record on covid estimates is extremely poor.

sciencebasedmedicine.org...

It was certainly never that low in developed nations.

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: ScepticScot

You seem to want to divert and drift from the main conversation.

Look at the question posed in the opening page.
Let me repeat what the question is:

[b,]What is the infection fatality rate (IFR) of Covid 19 now?

So the member who has posted the question expects a specific number and not a range of numbers in different States or different countries or different age groups. He/she certainly doesn't seem to try to politicalize the issue.

So what is expected is a specific number. And what number is this? That's very simple to answer. The global average infection fatality rate.

The global average infection fatality rate was according to Dr John Ioannidis from Stanford around 0.15% when it was estimated before the vaccines were made available.

Now the global average infection fatality rate is expected to be lower and even much lower given the immunity in the population after exposure to the virus for more than 3 years.

Divert like bringing up spanish flu continually?

Current IFR is probably pretty low due to dominant strains, previous infections and vaccination.

We still continue to get covid deaths so it's not completely negligible.

Your post is disingenuous.
I don't think it's irrelevant to compare the IFR of the Spanish Flu with the IFR of Covid-19 given also that you had an issue with the global average infection fatality rate due to ideological and political reasons i.e you wanted to justify the lockdowns.

Spanish Flu IFR = 10%
Covid-19 IFR = 0.15%

Just to get a perspective.

It's obviously lower now.

A new study shows the pre vaccination IFR is 0.03% to 0.07% in age 50-65 age groups which is far lower than what was reported and nothing like the nonsense septic scot is posting.

Are you going share a link with class?

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: ScepticScot

You seem to want to divert and drift from the main conversation.

Look at the question posed in the opening page.
Let me repeat what the question is:

[b,]What is the infection fatality rate (IFR) of Covid 19 now?

So the member who has posted the question expects a specific number and not a range of numbers in different States or different countries or different age groups. He/she certainly doesn't seem to try to politicalize the issue.

So what is expected is a specific number. And what number is this? That's very simple to answer. The global average infection fatality rate.

The global average infection fatality rate was according to Dr John Ioannidis from Stanford around 0.15% when it was estimated before the vaccines were made available.

Now the global average infection fatality rate is expected to be lower and even much lower given the immunity in the population after exposure to the virus for more than 3 years.

Divert like bringing up spanish flu continually?

Current IFR is probably pretty low due to dominant strains, previous infections and vaccination.

We still continue to get covid deaths so it's not completely negligible.

Yes there are still deaths despite the attempts to convince everyone to get vaccinated to achieve herd immunity...There is no herd immunity with coronaviruses given that vaccines cannot prevent transmission and Infection.

The IFR will drop naturally after three years of exposure.

You have to be more concerned as in your country of origin there are a lot of excess deaths and most of them are non Covid deaths.

It's certainly not climate change or the Republicans to blame in the US.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: ScepticScot

You seem to want to divert and drift from the main conversation.

Look at the question posed in the opening page.
Let me repeat what the question is:

[b,]What is the infection fatality rate (IFR) of Covid 19 now?

So the member who has posted the question expects a specific number and not a range of numbers in different States or different countries or different age groups. He/she certainly doesn't seem to try to politicalize the issue.

So what is expected is a specific number. And what number is this? That's very simple to answer. The global average infection fatality rate.

The global average infection fatality rate was according to Dr John Ioannidis from Stanford around 0.15% when it was estimated before the vaccines were made available.

Now the global average infection fatality rate is expected to be lower and even much lower given the immunity in the population after exposure to the virus for more than 3 years.

Divert like bringing up spanish flu continually?

Current IFR is probably pretty low due to dominant strains, previous infections and vaccination.

We still continue to get covid deaths so it's not completely negligible.

Your post is disingenuous.
I don't think it's irrelevant to compare the IFR of the Spanish Flu with the IFR of Covid-19 given also that you had an issue with the global average infection fatality rate due to ideological and political reasons i.e you wanted to justify the lockdowns.

Spanish Flu IFR = 10%
Covid-19 IFR = 0.15%

Just to get a perspective.

It's obviously lower now.

Only it isnt obvious it was .15% to begin with as other studies give higher figures and Ionnandis record on covid estimates is extremely poor.

sciencebasedmedicine.org...

It was certainly never that low in developed nations.

Lol, science based medicine. The same site where the head doc "skepdoc" died in her sleep after getting all her boosters. Nice source.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: ScepticScot

You seem to want to divert and drift from the main conversation.

Look at the question posed in the opening page.
Let me repeat what the question is:

[b,]What is the infection fatality rate (IFR) of Covid 19 now?

So the member who has posted the question expects a specific number and not a range of numbers in different States or different countries or different age groups. He/she certainly doesn't seem to try to politicalize the issue.

So what is expected is a specific number. And what number is this? That's very simple to answer. The global average infection fatality rate.

The global average infection fatality rate was according to Dr John Ioannidis from Stanford around 0.15% when it was estimated before the vaccines were made available.

Now the global average infection fatality rate is expected to be lower and even much lower given the immunity in the population after exposure to the virus for more than 3 years.

Divert like bringing up spanish flu continually?

Current IFR is probably pretty low due to dominant strains, previous infections and vaccination.

We still continue to get covid deaths so it's not completely negligible.

Your post is disingenuous.
I don't think it's irrelevant to compare the IFR of the Spanish Flu with the IFR of Covid-19 given also that you had an issue with the global average infection fatality rate due to ideological and political reasons i.e you wanted to justify the lockdowns.

Spanish Flu IFR = 10%
Covid-19 IFR = 0.15%

Just to get a perspective.

It's obviously lower now.

Only it isnt obvious it was .15% to begin with as other studies give higher figures and Ionnandis record on covid estimates is extremely poor.

sciencebasedmedicine.org...

It was certainly never that low in developed nations.

That is false about Dr Ioannidis. He is one of the top epidemiologists in the world if not the top one.

I wonder how do you get these ideas that his record on Covid estimates is very poor. Something you didn't mention before until after you have read an article by David Gorski.... You have probably forgotten that we have discussed extensively that this person has close ties with the pharmaceutical companies.

His opinion on the work of Dr Ioannidis has no weight or merits.

If anything Dr Ioannidis' work is one of the most cited you can find.

apps.who.int...

Infection fatality rate of COVID-19 inferred from seroprevalence data

This particular work has been cited by another 528 researchers and is one of the most cited papers in the field. And it appears in the bulletin of the WHO

Ioannidis, John P A. (‎2021)‎. Infection fatality rate of COVID-19 inferred from seroprevalence data. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 99 (‎1)‎, 19 - 33F. World Health Organization. dx.doi.org...

The idea that he has a poor record on Covid estimates has basis in science fiction and not in reality. It's incredible how you have moved from trying to argue against the paper to argue against the scientist himself.

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: ScepticScot

You seem to want to divert and drift from the main conversation.

Look at the question posed in the opening page.
Let me repeat what the question is:

[b,]What is the infection fatality rate (IFR) of Covid 19 now?

So the member who has posted the question expects a specific number and not a range of numbers in different States or different countries or different age groups. He/she certainly doesn't seem to try to politicalize the issue.

So what is expected is a specific number. And what number is this? That's very simple to answer. The global average infection fatality rate.

The global average infection fatality rate was according to Dr John Ioannidis from Stanford around 0.15% when it was estimated before the vaccines were made available.

Now the global average infection fatality rate is expected to be lower and even much lower given the immunity in the population after exposure to the virus for more than 3 years.

Divert like bringing up spanish flu continually?

Current IFR is probably pretty low due to dominant strains, previous infections and vaccination.

We still continue to get covid deaths so it's not completely negligible.

Your post is disingenuous.
I don't think it's irrelevant to compare the IFR of the Spanish Flu with the IFR of Covid-19 given also that you had an issue with the global average infection fatality rate due to ideological and political reasons i.e you wanted to justify the lockdowns.

Spanish Flu IFR = 10%
Covid-19 IFR = 0.15%

Just to get a perspective.

It's obviously lower now.

Only it isnt obvious it was .15% to begin with as other studies give higher figures and Ionnandis record on covid estimates is extremely poor.

sciencebasedmedicine.org...

It was certainly never that low in developed nations.

Lol, science based medicine. The same site where the head doc "skepdoc" died in her sleep after getting all her boosters. Nice source.

He is also citing David Gorski to attack John Ioannidis as they don't like that low IFR. They would have preferred something very larger that would fit their narratives and ideologies. Comedy gold!

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: tanstaafl

Each amplification cycle increases the amounts of the genomic sequences (it practically doubles at each cycle) in the test sample.

Again, your arro/ignorance is amazing.

I'll defer to the person who actually created the PCR test as to how useless it is as a diagnostic tool, and how using too high of an amplification setting will render any results as meaninglessly useless.

But by all means... carry on.

Kary Mullis described the method that used the polymerase reaction to duplicate genomic sequences so that they could be increased to abundances that made it available for chemical assay. But the actual process was refined and improved over 28 years of practical use and scientific observation in which he took no part.

Even if Mullis thought his original idea wasn't good enough for diagnostics of the HIV virus (he passed away before COVID had been identified), the actual current processes of PCR testing are nothing like the process as originally envisioned by Mullis.

Mullis also 'lived hard' and there has been some question of the amount of damage this had on him over the years:

“I encountered a glowing green raccoon riding a neon orange motorcycle at my cabin in the woods of northern California around midnight one night in 1985. The raccoon proceeded to metamorphose into a singing dolphin at the stroke of midnight.” — Kary Mullis

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: ScepticScot

You seem to want to divert and drift from the main conversation.

Look at the question posed in the opening page.
Let me repeat what the question is:

[b,]What is the infection fatality rate (IFR) of Covid 19 now?

So the member who has posted the question expects a specific number and not a range of numbers in different States or different countries or different age groups. He/she certainly doesn't seem to try to politicalize the issue.

So what is expected is a specific number. And what number is this? That's very simple to answer. The global average infection fatality rate.

The global average infection fatality rate was according to Dr John Ioannidis from Stanford around 0.15% when it was estimated before the vaccines were made available.

Now the global average infection fatality rate is expected to be lower and even much lower given the immunity in the population after exposure to the virus for more than 3 years.

Divert like bringing up spanish flu continually?

Current IFR is probably pretty low due to dominant strains, previous infections and vaccination.

We still continue to get covid deaths so it's not completely negligible.

Your post is disingenuous.
I don't think it's irrelevant to compare the IFR of the Spanish Flu with the IFR of Covid-19 given also that you had an issue with the global average infection fatality rate due to ideological and political reasons i.e you wanted to justify the lockdowns.

Spanish Flu IFR = 10%
Covid-19 IFR = 0.15%

Just to get a perspective.

It's obviously lower now.

A new study shows the pre vaccination IFR is 0.03% to 0.07% in age 50-65 age groups which is far lower than what was reported and nothing like the nonsense septic scot is posting.

Are you going share a link with class?

Sane link as the one I posted with the IFRs for different age groups. But we all know that you are not reading any of these links and the publications involved.If you did you will be able to recognise the numbers straight away. You are trying to argue on the basis of political ideology and beliefs.

Remember the global average IFR was estimated at 0.15% and not what you are trying to propagate for political reasons so to support lockdowns and whatever else you have supported so far.

The lockdown ideology is as legitimate as the transgender ideology....