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

a reply to: ScepticScot

Apparently so.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MaxxAction
I am struggling to understand why so many have a vested interest in this virus being more deadly than it is.

If I had to guess, I would say it's more than likely because if it was admitted that it really wasn't that deadly, they have to admit they were fooled.

Anyone wish to address this?

Why do so many have a vested interest in this virus bring less deadly than it is?

If I had to guess I would say they its more thsn likely they don't want to admit how foolish they were believing really stupid conspiracy theories.

The opposite is true though. As the virus does have a very low IFR and it seems that some want to present it as the Spanish Flu to support their own beliefs in lockdowns and mass vaccinations and so on.

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

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: ScepticScot

Alternative opinions are all "absurd and ludicrous", apparently.

If I agree with you does that mean we are the same person or something?

Pseudo-rhetorical questions and strawman arguments.


From the FT Article

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

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MaxxAction
I am struggling to understand why so many have a vested interest in this virus being more deadly than it is.

If I had to guess, I would say it's more than likely because if it was admitted that it really wasn't that deadly, they have to admit they were fooled.

Anyone wish to address this?

Why do so many have a vested interest in this virus bring less deadly than it is?

If I had to guess I would say they its more thsn likely they don't want to admit how foolish they were believing really stupid conspiracy theories.

The opposite is true though. As the virus does have a very low IFR and it seems that some want to present it as the Spanish Flu to support their own beliefs in lockdowns and mass vaccinations and so on.

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

Still the only one here comparing it to the Spanish flu is you.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MaxxAction
I am struggling to understand why so many have a vested interest in this virus being more deadly than it is.

If I had to guess, I would say it's more than likely because if it was admitted that it really wasn't that deadly, they have to admit they were fooled.

Anyone wish to address this?

Why do so many have a vested interest in this virus bring less deadly than it is?

If I had to guess I would say they its more thsn likely they don't want to admit how foolish they were believing really stupid conspiracy theories.

Strawman argument.

The belief in conspiracy theories you have claimed.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: ScepticScot

Alternative opinions are all "absurd and ludicrous", apparently.

If I agree with you does that mean we are the same person or something?

Pseudo-rhetorical questions and strawman arguments.


From the FT Article

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

Still don't think you know what a strawman argument is

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MaxxAction
I am struggling to understand why so many have a vested interest in this virus being more deadly than it is.

If I had to guess, I would say it's more than likely because if it was admitted that it really wasn't that deadly, they have to admit they were fooled.

Anyone wish to address this?

Why do so many have a vested interest in this virus bring less deadly than it is?

If I had to guess I would say they its more thsn likely they don't want to admit how foolish they were believing really stupid conspiracy theories.

The opposite is true though. As the virus does have a very low IFR and it seems that some want to present it as the Spanish Flu to support their own beliefs in lockdowns and mass vaccinations and so on.

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

Still the only one here comparing it to the Spanish flu is you.

Nothing wrong with it.
Comparisons are useful

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: ScepticScot

Alternative opinions are all "absurd and ludicrous", apparently.

If I agree with you does that mean we are the same person or something?

Pseudo-rhetorical questions and strawman arguments.


From the FT Article

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

Still don't think you know what a strawman argument is

You are mistaken just as you are mistaken when you claim others believe in conspiracy theories.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MaxxAction
I am struggling to understand why so many have a vested interest in this virus being more deadly than it is.

If I had to guess, I would say it's more than likely because if it was admitted that it really wasn't that deadly, they have to admit they were fooled.

Anyone wish to address this?

Why do so many have a vested interest in this virus bring less deadly than it is?

If I had to guess I would say they its more thsn likely they don't want to admit how foolish they were believing really stupid conspiracy theories.

Strawman argument.

The belief in conspiracy theories you have claimed.

Yep you definitely don't know what a strawman argument is.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

Can you show an example of anyone comparing COVID to Spanish Flu, please?

Other than your good self?

Your claim, so don't bother with the customary "straw man" response.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Can you show an example of anyone comparing COVID to Spanish Flu, please?

Other than your good self?

Your claim, so don't bother with the customary "straw man" response.

The establishment did when they were trying to enforce lockdowns and other absurd and dangerous measures and when they were trying to cajole everyone to get vaccinated with potentially dangerous products.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Can you show an example of anyone comparing COVID to Spanish Flu, please?

Other than your good self?

Your claim, so don't bother with the customary "straw man" response.

There is nothing wrong in making comparisons. Only with comparisons you get the idea how deadly a disease is.

a reply to: Asmodeus3


"You are mistaken just as you are mistaken when you claim others believe in conspiracy theories."

Quite a few folk on here believe in conspiracy theories, what with this actually being a conspiracy theory site?

By definition, you are yourself a believer in a conspiracy theory.

That is not being at all a dismissal of your views, just stating a fact.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

Can you point to a single instance where "the establishment" or anyone else compared COVID to Spanish Flu, as you claim?

a reply to: ScepticScot

It appears to me that there is more evidence that it wasn't as bad as advertised, even the original variant. The average age of death from Covid worldwide is 76 yrs old, eighty some percent of people who died from it had 4 significant co-morbidities, and influenza deaths dropped by 98%. These are just a few data points that should lead one to believe they have lied about covid morbidity since day one.

When you consider all the rest of the insanity surrounding covid, and the mountain of lies we were told, it should be obvious.

originally posted by: MaxxAction
a reply to: ScepticScot

It appears to me that there is more evidence that it wasn't as bad as advertised, even the original variant. The average age of death from Covid worldwide is 76 yrs old, eighty some percent of people who died from it had 4 significant co-morbidities, and influenza deaths dropped by 98%. These are just a few data points that should lead one to believe they have lied about covid morbidity since day one.

When you consider all the rest of the insanity surrounding covid, and the mountain of lies we were told, it should be obvious.

Massive increase in excess deaths say it was pretty bad.

Yes it mainly affected older age groups, don't they matter?

a reply to: Asmodeus3

I answered all questions, will you answer any of mine? I can tell you are a layman otherwise you would have respected the difference between ~ and = would never have made it through entrance exams of any science or maths course at Uni. It's impossible to make it past 1st year without being able to derive and apply boundary conditions and values as they're the very basis of epidemiology and require specialised study.

Yup I'm from UK, - had a proper science and maths education and got to work with some of the best in the field exposing Bad Pharma - UCLan is University of Central Lancashire (Jeremiah Horrocks Institute for Maths) which is why I don't appreciate your constant false claims I'm some form of 'vaccine appologist', 'pharma defender' or have 'left wing agenda' just because I and others actually spent time and effort learning the subjects and working in relevant areas.

He uses them in both page 20 data synth in WHO one and Seroprevlance and Death Calulations section of the Wiley paper. All the variables he gives are meant to be inputted into compartmental models

I was busy reading the papers you posted and as an ex maths teacher/mentor, keen interest in debating the subject and studying the short term pros vs long term cons of lockdowns I try and try and encourage education on the topic and independent evaluation -

It's obvious you don't actually understand how he computed the IFR in his calculation or have means of evaluating his methodology otherwise you'd respond with criticisms relevant to the subject field instead of the usual 'vaccine/big pharma/left wing' appologist ad hom accusations to avoid discussing the topic.

That's nothing to be shameful of though as only a select few of us are boring enough to specialise in this area of Maths - Stanford have a lot of great free online Uni courses on the subject, just do yourself a favour and don't pretend to understand the details of how IFR or similar epidemic models are derived and applied as your general understanding of how these subject areas work is a lot better than average - just need the extra few years of maths study to understand the specifics or be able to review a paper.

I.e this is a very basic model of how you would derive an R-nought value and do basic modelling to gain vague appreciation of how I values are applied and why lockdowns sought to reduce R0 < 1 - it'd still take a couple of years focussed study to understand it properly though Jones - notes on R0

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Asmodeus3


"You are mistaken just as you are mistaken when you claim others believe in conspiracy theories."

Quite a few folk on here believe in conspiracy theories, what with this actually being a conspiracy theory site?

By definition, you are yourself a believer in a conspiracy theory.

That is not being at all a dismissal of your views, just stating a fact.

Who is believing in conspiracy theories?

It seems to me there are a lot here who are engaging in vaccine apologetics and denialism of reality and can't even accept the IFR of Covid-19 is 0.15% or let's say a very low figure even if they don't accept the number itself

a reply to: ScepticScot

Of course they do...

So you protect them, you let everyone else go about their business. Had they done this, it would have burned itself out within months. Instead, we stuck covid infected people into nursing homes, and told all those who were otherwise healthy they couldn't work, shop, congregate, eat together, etc, etc., made people wear masks which were a net negative. They enacted the "come back when your o2 levels are so low your lips are tuning blue" protocol. They treated people with drugs that were destroying their kidneys, and ventilating people who may have survived had they not been ventilated.

The whole thing is completely ass backwards if they truly wanted to reduce mortality/morbidity from covid.

originally posted by: bastion
a reply to: Asmodeus3

I answered all questions, will you answer any of mine? I can tell you are a layman otherwise you would have respected the difference between ~ and = would never have made it through entrance exams of any science or maths course at Uni. It's impossible to make it past 1st year without being able to derive and apply boundary conditions and values as they're the very basis of epidemiology and require specialised study.

Yup I'm from UK, - had a proper science and maths education and got to work with some of the best in the field exposing Bad Pharma - UCLan is University of Central Lancashire (Jeremiah Horrocks Institute for Maths) which is why I don't appreciate your constant false claims I'm some form of 'vaccine appologist', 'pharma defender' or have 'left wing agenda' just because I and others actually spent time and effort learning the subjects and working in relevant areas.

He uses them in both page 20 data synth in WHO one and Seroprevlance and Death Calulations section of the Wiley paper. All the variables he gives are meant to be inputted into compartmental models

I was busy reading the papers you posted and as an ex maths teacher/mentor, keen interest in debating the subject and studying the short term pros vs long term cons of lockdowns I try and try and encourage education on the topic and independent evaluation -

It's obvious you don't actually understand how he computed the IFR in his calculation or have means of evaluating his methodology otherwise you'd respond with criticisms relevant to the subject field instead of the usual 'vaccine/big pharma/left wing' appologist ad hom accusations to avoid discussing the topic.

That's nothing to be shameful of though as only a select few of us are boring enough to specialise in this area of Maths - Stanford have a lot of great free online Uni courses on the subject, just do yourself a favour and don't pretend to understand the details of how IFR or similar epidemic models are derived and applied as your general understanding of how these subject areas work is a lot better than average - just need the extra few years of maths study to understand the specifics or be able to review a paper.

I.e this is a very basic model of how you would derive an R-nought value and do basic modelling to gain vague appreciation of how I values are applied and why lockdowns sought to reduce R0 < 1 - it'd still take a couple of years focussed study to understand it properly though Jones - notes on R0

If you want to expose bad and big pharma then the Covid campaign and the vaccination campaign that was hijacked by them, it's the best opportunity.

So you have to come to the conclusion that I am a layman because of

"would have respected the difference between ~ and = "

Haha


From the rankings

Both prominent UK publishers have placed UCLAN within the top 100 universities in the UK. The Complete University Guide has ranked UCLAN at 89th position for 2022 in its university ranking which is a sharp improvement from 102nd for 2019 but has gone down from its ranking in 2021 which was 70th.

Ranked 89th in 2022...
I wonder why

I am the one who has linked the papers by Dr Ioannidis on IFR.

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

Do me a favour please and stop the derailing of the thread with nonsense.