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

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

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.

The idea that he is a poor record on covid is based on reality as covered in the article.

That isn't arguing against the scientist, it's pointing out his estimates for covid gave not matched the real world.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

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....

Quoted as you were the one claiming I was themotivated by political ideology.

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.

Controversial dying at age of 77...

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

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....

The one you posted on page 6?

I don't think so as a different figure and yours was not a new study.

If you posted a different link I may have missed it please repost.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

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.

The idea that he is a poor record on covid is based on reality as covered in the article.

That isn't arguing against the scientist, it's pointing out his estimates for covid gave not matched the real world.

That is an unsubstantiated claim based on an article by David Gorski. You have to try harder I am afraid.

His work is one of the most cited in the world on his field of not the most cited in the world and appears in the Bulletin of the WHO

apps.who.int...

528 citations by other researchers in the area.

His estimates are considered to be very accurate regardless of your unsubstantiated claims.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

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....

The one you posted on page 6?

I don't think so as a different figure and yours was not a new study.

If you posted a different link I may have missed it please repost.

If you have read any of these publications you would have come across these figures. Bit obviously you don't which shows clearly in these threads.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

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....

Quoted as you were the one claiming I was themotivated by political ideology.

Yes you are motivated by political ideology and beliefs and you are trying hard to argue about IFR being something else i.e much higher at a global average level or even at a local level so to justify lockdowns and whatever measures and restrictions have been taken.

You may want to consider the excess deaths in your country which are mainly non Covid deaths in their majority. It's certainly not climate change or the Republicans in the US.

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.

Not to forget what the global average IFR is.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

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....

The one you posted on page 6?

I don't think so as a different figure and yours was not a new study.

If you posted a different link I may have missed it please repost.

If you have read any of these publications you would have come across these figures. Bit obviously you don't which shows clearly in these threads.

Yet strangley still no link.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

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....

Quoted as you were the one claiming I was themotivated by political ideology.

Yes you are motivated by political ideology and beliefs and you are trying hard to argue about IFR being something else i.e much higher at a global average level or even at a local level so to justify lockdowns and whatever measures and restrictions have been taken.

You may want to consider the excess deaths in your country which are mainly non Covid deaths in their majority. It's certainly not climate change or the Republicans in the US.

From the guy bringing transgender into a thread about covid.

originally posted by: JohnThomas2


And why doesn't the media EVER mention the Infection Fatality Rate any more? They sure were happy to terrorise us all with a ridiculously high figure when the scamdemic first started...

The News Media and Medical "Experts" never mentioned the Infection Fatality Rate. If they did, only a relative few people would have been alarmed.

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: JohnThomas2


And why doesn't the media EVER mention the Infection Fatality Rate any more? They sure were happy to terrorise us all with a ridiculously high figure when the scamdemic first started...

The News Media and Medical "Experts" never mentioned the Infection Fatality Rate. If they did, only a relative few people would have been alarmed.

Precisely!

As the infection fatality rate is quite low and regardless of the attempts made so Covid can be presented as the Spanish Flu.

For comparison

IFR of Covid-19 was around 0.15% and that's before the vaccines were available.

IFR of the Spanish Flu was around 10%

And in reality Covid affects mostly those who are elderly and with co-morbidities. The chances young and healthy people die due to Covid are miniscule.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

It's best to learn the basics of maths such as the difference between ~ and = before trying to claim multi-variable calculus, eigen values/vectorial derivatives, saddle points, spectral radii and general linear algebra are all wrong.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

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.

Controversial dying at age of 77...

Yeah once you get above a certain age, death is imminent. No investigation required. That's how it works.

originally posted by: bastion
a reply to: Asmodeus3

It's best to learn the basics of maths such as the difference between ~ and = before trying to claim multi-variable calculus, eigen values/vectorial derivatives, saddle points, spectral radii and general linear algebra are all wrong.

Did you even read the thread? No.

Then why come post a bunch of nonsense. Septic is getting exposed so he calls for backup?

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

originally posted by: ScepticScot

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.

Controversial dying at age of 77...

Yeah once you get above a certain age, death is imminent. No investigation required. That's how it works.

Your investigation being what exactly?

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: tanstaafl
Mullis also 'lived hard' and there has been some question of the amount of damage this had on him over the years:

Rotflmao!!

Why am I not surprised you resort to character assassination as an argument.

Carry on chr0... carry on...

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: tanstaafl
Mullis also 'lived hard' and there has been some question of the amount of damage this had on him over the years:

Rotflmao!!

Why am I not surprised you resort to character assassination as an argument.

Carry on chr0... carry on...

Its always ad hominem. Never a science based argument.

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: tanstaafl
Mullis also 'lived hard' and there has been some question of the amount of damage this had on him over the years:

Rotflmao!!

Why am I not surprised you resort to character assassination as an argument.

Carry on chr0... carry on...

Its always ad hominem. Never a science based argument.

The science based argument is that PCR testing is the accepted and well reseached test worldwide by scientists, and an out of context quote from decades ago doesn't change that.

a reply to: v1rtu0s0

I think I have linked this one before but it's worth seeing it again

www.ft.com...

A combination of high levels of immunity and the reduced severity of the Omicron variant has rendered Covid-19 less lethal than influenza for the vast majority of people in England, according to a Financial Times analysis of official data.

Which implies what you were saying before i.e that the infection fatality rate of the dominant variant of SARS-CoV-2 is less than that of the flu. On some countries seems to be true. And probably after 3 years of exposure this could be true for pretty much everywhere in the world.