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

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: LordAhriman

originally posted by: Dalamax
A corona virus is a cold with a good publicity team.

MERS is a coronavirus with a 34% mortality rate. "JuSt A C0Ld!"

You are discussing a different virus and you are clearly confusing two different rates. The infection fatality rate and the case fatality rate.

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

Above you have described the case fatality rate which was around 34%. But that's something very different to the infection fatality rate which is the topic of the thread count for a different virus and the disease that it could cause - Covid-19

The CFR does not multiply actual measured data by a guessed at number.

Again, you are confusing matters.
The measure of how deadly a disease is, it is always given by the Infection fatality rate and not the case fatality rate.

The measure of how deadly a disease is, is how many people the disease kills.

It makes sense to compare mortality in a subset of data that has only tested, symptomatic, and confirmed cases of a disease. Comparing mortality against numbers that may not have actually had the disease (those who are both symptomless and untested, who are part of the data used in IFR estimates, cannot be confirmed to have had the disease) is folly for determining how deadly a disease is. You go with proven cases, and then note the number of deaths in that data set - the case-fatality-ratio.

The latter is misleading and inaccurate. We have discussed this several times in the past but you don't seem to get it.

You also claimed that Covid had a 10% but ai don't know where did you get it.

Covid had an IFR of around 0.15% estimated long time ago and before the vaccines were made available.

I never claimed that the CFR (what I have been using) was 10%. Overall, CFR has been different for different countries, and some countries had a higher CFR than average, but the world average CFR for the alpha strain, and prior to vaccination was around 2%.

CFR is not a good measure of how deadly a disease is. Around 1/3 or even more people are asymptomatic when infected with SARS-CoV-2 and most others have mild symptoms and they many never get tested it even know they had it.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Asmodeus3

I agree IFR is the superior measure, however

had an IFR of around 0.15% estimated long time ago and before the vaccines were made available.

Is clearly wrong in developed countries.

Again there is nothing wrong with the estimations made by Dr Ioannidis from Stanford long time ago.

Average global fatality rate = 0.15%

In comparison the average global fatality rate of the Spanish Flu was around 10%.
500 million infected and 50 million deaths.

Other than they are too low for developed nations.

It doesn't matter as the paper specified that there are differences in different countries. It's already there.

But what it measures is what is suppose to measure: The average global 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 continents, countries and locations

Now it will probably much lower than that, given the immunity in the population and after most people have been infected.

The same author has estimated in another paper the IFR for most age groups and found that it is very low for children and young adults. I think 0.0003% for the 0-19 age group and 0.003% for the 20-29 age group and so on.

Idk the answer to the OP’s question but I bet you money it’s higher for vaccinated people.

originally posted by: iwanttobelieve70
Idk the answer to the OP’s question but I bet you money it’s higher for vaccinated people.

The answer to the OP is that the infection fatality rate which was 0.15% is significantly lower after there years of exposure to the virus and immunity that has been build up in the population. It's that simple and not rocket science.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Asmodeus3

I agree IFR is the superior measure, however

had an IFR of around 0.15% estimated long time ago and before the vaccines were made available.

Is clearly wrong in developed countries.

Again there is nothing wrong with the estimations made by Dr Ioannidis from Stanford long time ago.

Average global fatality rate = 0.15%

In comparison the average global fatality rate of the Spanish Flu was around 10%.
500 million infected and 50 million deaths.

Other than they are too low for developed nations.

It doesn't matter as the paper specified that there are differences in different countries. It's already there.

But what it measures is what is suppose to measure: The average global 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 continents, countries and locations

Now it will probably much lower then that given the immunity in the population and after most people have been infected.

The same author has estimated in another part the IFR for most age groups and found that it is very low for children and young adults. I think 0.0003% for the 0-19 age group and 0.003% for the 20-29 age group and so on.

Since policy is generally done at national level it matters a lot.

Discussions on this site are generally also about the impact and policy in developed countries.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Asmodeus3

I agree IFR is the superior measure, however

had an IFR of around 0.15% estimated long time ago and before the vaccines were made available.

Is clearly wrong in developed countries.

Again there is nothing wrong with the estimations made by Dr Ioannidis from Stanford long time ago.

Average global fatality rate = 0.15%

In comparison the average global fatality rate of the Spanish Flu was around 10%.
500 million infected and 50 million deaths.

Other than they are too low for developed nations.

It doesn't matter as the paper specified that there are differences in different countries. It's already there.

But what it measures is what is suppose to measure: The average global 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 continents, countries and locations

Now it will probably much lower then that given the immunity in the population and after most people have been infected.

The same author has estimated in another part the IFR for most age groups and found that it is very low for children and young adults. I think 0.0003% for the 0-19 age group and 0.003% for the 20-29 age group and so on.

Since policy is generally done at national level it matters a lot.

Discussions on this site are generally also about the impact and policy in developed countries.

The paper I have linked acknowledges there are differences in different countries. But again it estimates the average global IFR.

It is also true that after 3 years of exposure the IFR had significantly dropped as there is very good of immunity in the population.

The lockdowns and all these measures were failed policies for a number of reasons and given that children and young adults up to the age of 45-50 were never at any serious risk from Covid. In the stats given by the same author the IFR for the 0-19 group was 0.0003% I.e 3 deaths per million infections. And 3 deaths per 100,000 infections for the 20-29 age group.

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.

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.

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.

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.

But it was never that high. That looks more of a case fatality rate rather than an Infection fatality rate.

None of the measures have been justified and there seems to be a change of heart in relation to the lockdowns and restrictions. They have failed as they were political measures and not epidemiological measures. They have probably contributed in doing much more harm than good and there are several scientists who have commented on their 'effectiveness'

Bottom line none of these governments used a high IFR scenario to justify there measures as it wasn't high to start with. It was relatively low to very low in most countries. The main narratives were to lockdown to save lives and get vaccinated to save granny. Both were false and politically motivated.

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: watchitburn
Cases were most often confirmed not just from symptoms, but by testing by PCR, which looked for the presence of the viral sequence (and also allowed the strain of the infection to be determined),

PCR tests set at such a high amplification level as to make the tests worse than useless, because it created a huge number of false positives.

You know this, yet you pretend you don't, or gaslight when it is pointed out to you. Be a human.

and also by testing for the presence of antigens against the virus.

PCR tests for antigens? No, sorry, not from what I have read. Yes, you can use the same sample that is sued for the PCR test to also do an antigen test, but they are different tests, and doing the PCR does not automatically mean an antigen test was also done.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

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.

But it was never that high. That looks more of a case fatality rate rather than an Infection fatality rate.

None of the measures have been justified and there seems to be a change of heart in relation to the lockdowns and restrictions. They have failed as they were political measures and not epidemiological measures. They have probably contributed in doing much more harm than good and there are several scientists who have commented on their 'effectiveness'

Bottom line none of these governments used a high IFR scenario to justify there measures as it wasn't high to start with. It was relatively low to very low in most countries. The main narratives were to lockdown to save lives and get vaccinated to save granny. Both were false and politically motivated.

Just saying it was never that high doesn't make it so.

Italy provides useful idea of what could have happened without interventions as it was first developed area to gave significant covid outbreak. That showed an IFR of of over 2% if medical care was overwhelmed.

The initial restrictions were based largely around estimates of total deaths, derived from IFR.

You opinion is your opinion, jowever there isn't any real rational support for the belief that the policies weren't to reduce covid deaths.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

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.

But it was never that high. That looks more of a case fatality rate rather than an Infection fatality rate.

None of the measures have been justified and there seems to be a change of heart in relation to the lockdowns and restrictions. They have failed as they were political measures and not epidemiological measures. They have probably contributed in doing much more harm than good and there are several scientists who have commented on their 'effectiveness'

Bottom line none of these governments used a high IFR scenario to justify there measures as it wasn't high to start with. It was relatively low to very low in most countries. The main narratives were to lockdown to save lives and get vaccinated to save granny. Both were false and politically motivated.

Just saying it was never that high doesn't make it so.

Italy provides useful idea of what could have happened without interventions as it was first developed area to gave significant covid outbreak. That showed an IFR of of over 2% if medical care was overwhelmed.

The initial restrictions were based largely around estimates of total deaths, derived from IFR.

You opinion is your opinion, jowever there isn't any real rational support for the belief that the policies weren't to reduce covid deaths.

You quoted the United States and I answered in relation to the country which never had such an IFR. The total amount of deaths after 3 years is probably around over a million people.

The policies have failed as the deaths were not reduced with these lockdowns.

You may want to have a look at the excess deaths in all countries that in their majority are mainly non Covid deaths. One of the major factors were the lockdowns. Especially deaths in young and healthy people who were never in any serious risk from Covid.

There might have been an intent to reduce deaths. But lockdowns were catastrophic and have long term impacts on physical and mental health. Excess non Covid deaths is a testimony to this.

a reply to: ScepticScot


In principle the response to the Covid Pandemic was catastrophic and will create menu more victims in the longer term. It has already created many excess non Covid deaths and the deaths are there at almost a constant rate every week.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

Would you like to provide any evidence to support your opinions?

a reply to: tanstaafl

The guy who won the Nobel prize for creating PCR said it wasn't fit to diagnose disease...

www.rcreader.com...

youtu.be...

The over amplification would be why fruit tested positive for covid.

www.independent.co.uk...

See hilarious

a reply to: LordAhriman

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Would you like to provide any evidence to support your opinions?

I have already done so in various threads and here. Unless you pretend to be myopic and can't see the 'evidence'.

The excess non Covid deaths is a fact.

The lockdowns were very damaging and this is something accepted by most now including a lot of scientists. Long term lockdowns have had catastrophic consequences

www.theguardian.com...

Britain got it wrong on Covid: long lockdown did more harm than good, says scientist
A new book outlines the mistakes and missteps that made UK pandemic

We did serious harm to our children and young adults who were robbed of their education, jobs and normal existence, as well as suffering damage to their future prospects, while they were left to inherit a record-breaking mountain of public debt,” he argues. “All this to protect the NHS from a disease that is a far, far greater threat to the elderly, frail and infirm than to the young and healthy.

I think it speaks for itself.



The response to the pandemic was just terrible. You have excess non Covid deaths in the UK on a weekly basis for a long time now. What do you think this is?! And the number is large and almost constant. This is happening pretty much everywhere.


And the IFR is indeed 0.15% for Covid


There are several threads that we have covered a range of matters from excess deaths, to lockdowns, to severe adverse reactions and deaths, and I can't remember how many other matters. The thread is about something else by the way.


The above are not just my opinions and I don't think there is much challenge in what I have said unless someone is eager to peddle the official narratives but not many believe them anymore. You have missed many conversations and you haven't done much reading as it seems.

In addition several scientists have asked for the end of the vaccination program due to the severe adverse reactions of the mRNA products.

The AZ vaccine doesn't seem to be around anymore in most countries that have used it and including the UK. It has been quitely and methodically withdrawn because of health and safety reasons (blood clots and subsequent deaths).

The campaign doesn't seem to have succeeded... On the contrary, unless you think it was a success...

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Would you like to provide any evidence to support your opinions?

I have already done so in various threads and here.
Unless you pretend to be myopic and can't see the 'evidence'.

The excess non Covid deaths is a fact.

The lockdowns were very damaging and this something accepted by most now including most scientists.

The response to the pandemic was the terrible.


And the IFR is indeed 0.15% for Covid


There are several threads that we have covered a range of matters from excess deaths, to lockdowns, to severe adverse reactions and deaths, and I can't remember how many other matters. The thread is about something else.


The above are not just my opinions and I don't think there is much challenge in whet I have said unless someone is eager to peddle the official narratives but not many believe them anymore. You have missed many conversations and you haven't done much reading as it seems.

In addition several scientists have asked for the end of the vaccination program due to the severe adverse reactions of the mRNA products.

The AZ vaccine doesn't seem to be around anymore in most countries that have used it and including the UK. It has been quitely and methodically withdrawn because of health and safety reasons (blood clots and subsequent deaths).

The campaign doesn't seem to have succeeded...

They are your opinions and they aren't supported by the evidence.


Several scientists? That sounds impressive. How many compared to the number that support vacciation?

The IFR isnt 0.15% for developed countries as already shown.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Would you like to provide any evidence to support your opinions?

I have already done so in various threads and here.
Unless you pretend to be myopic and can't see the 'evidence'.

The excess non Covid deaths is a fact.

The lockdowns were very damaging and this something accepted by most now including most scientists.

The response to the pandemic was the terrible.


And the IFR is indeed 0.15% for Covid


There are several threads that we have covered a range of matters from excess deaths, to lockdowns, to severe adverse reactions and deaths, and I can't remember how many other matters. The thread is about something else.


The above are not just my opinions and I don't think there is much challenge in whet I have said unless someone is eager to peddle the official narratives but not many believe them anymore. You have missed many conversations and you haven't done much reading as it seems.

In addition several scientists have asked for the end of the vaccination program due to the severe adverse reactions of the mRNA products.

The AZ vaccine doesn't seem to be around anymore in most countries that have used it and including the UK. It has been quitely and methodically withdrawn because of health and safety reasons (blood clots and subsequent deaths).

The campaign doesn't seem to have succeeded...

They are your opinions and they aren't supported by the evidence.


Several scientists? That sounds impressive. How many compared to the number that support vacciation?

The IFR isnt 0.15% for developed countries as already shown.

No they are not my opinions and I have supported them with plenty of evidence in several threads. This is a thread about the infection fatality rate which is 0.15% i.e the global average infection fatality rate. That's what the paper stated clearly.

It doesn't make any difference whether countries have different infection fatality rates as paper acknowledges this fact but discusses the average global IFR. I think you understood this point?

And no. Lockdowns were quite damaging

www.theguardian.com...


Britain got it wrong on Covid: long lockdown did more harm than good, says scientist
A new book outlines the mistakes and missteps that made UK pandemic

We did serious harm to our children and young adults who were robbed of their education, jobs and normal existence, as well as suffering damage to their future prospects, while they were left to inherit a record-breaking mountain of public debt,” he argues. “All this to protect the NHS from a disease that is a far, far greater threat to the elderly, frail and infirm than to the young and healthy.

It speaks for itself. In case you want to relate the IFR to lockdowns which were really damaging and when the IFR was low anyway.

You don't have to engage in vaccine apologetics and denialism of reality and you should stop defending the pharmaceuticals.

See how the British scientist above destroys the narrative you are trying to peddle here. But it has been debunked long time ago.