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

a reply to: ScepticScot

You believe the lockdowns were beneficial?!
You think it is my opinion there are excess deaths in most countries and therefore especially plenty of non Covid excess deaths?

You think the AZ vaccine was safe and effective?

Or that the higher IFR in your country was the reason to go to lockdowns?

Hardly anyone will agree with you here. Apart from a few vaccine apologists....

a reply to: ScepticScot


And again to emphasize how good the lockdowns have been

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.

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

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

No need for vaccine AND lockdown apologetics or defending of the narratives and the pharmaceuticals.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

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.

Yes, but people are hypochondriac and so some of those who think they have had COVID-19, but have not tested positive for it, haven't really had it. They most likely had a normal cold. So that part of the IFR data-set is crap.

Then there are those who have no symptoms. Since they are unlikely to test positive, they also may possibly not have it. So that part of the IFR data-set is crap.

And with seroprevalence testing, you often don't know specifically who contributed the samples as they are largely anonymous, and therefore you don't know if you are receiving blood from someone who has already given it and been previously counted, and secondly, they don't usually take blood donations from sick people, so that bit of data is pre-filtered and cannot be relied upon to be a true representation of community levels.

IFR is an estimate, no-one 'official' is calling it anything but an estimate. It is good for indicating worst case community spread, but it is still just an estimate, which even experts cannot agree on.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

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.

High amplification does not return any higher false positives than correct and reasonable levels of amplification. It is simply a waste of time because the readings will stay much the same as they were at more reasonable levels of amplification. Each amplification cycle takes time, but the readings won't suddenly change direction away from what they were at lower amplification.

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.

I was not saying that they do PCR testing for antigens. They are two different test regimes.

But often in hospital care situations, both tests are used. Antigen tests are quicker, but may not show any results early in an infection, as the body will not have begun making antigens.

PCR tests can measure small amounts of viral genomic sequence, but the process of amplification takes hours and in a busy lab the result of the test may come back hours after the test was taken.

Advanced PCR can also be used to identify the strain of a virus, but antigen tests cannot.

So, that is why in cases of hospitalization it is fairly routine procedure to use both types of test. And the result from one can also corroborate the other, even though they are different tests and usually taken at different times.

Starred for hilarity 🤣🤣😅😁

a reply to: chr0naut

originally posted by: Dalamax
Starred for hilarity 🤣🤣😅😁

a reply to: chr0naut

Pseudobulbar affect?

Don’t know why you bothered editing, I won’t report you. 🤓 1 in 45 peeps living comfortably with a deadly illness needs attending to.

a reply to: chr0naut

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

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.

Yes, but people are hypochondriac and so some of those who think they have had COVID-19, but have not tested positive for it, haven't really had it. They most likely had a normal cold. So that part of the IFR data-set is crap.

Then there are those who have no symptoms. Since they are unlikely to test positive, they also may possibly not have it. So that part of the IFR data-set is crap.

And with seroprevalence testing, you often don't know specifically who contributed the samples as they are largely anonymous, and therefore you don't know if you are receiving blood from someone who has already given it and been previously counted, and secondly, they don't usually take blood donations from sick people, so that bit of data is pre-filtered and cannot be relied upon to be a true representation of community levels.

IFR is an estimate, no-one 'official' is calling it anything but an estimate. It is good for indicating worst case community spread, but it is still just an estimate, which even experts cannot agree on.

Yes, but this is the most important estimate in epidemiology. That's why there are several papers and much research in determining the IFR using seroprevalence data and statistical analysis.

It's a whole science on its own to be able to find good estimates for the IFR and this is possible after taking into account those who never get tested and those who have no symptoms..Difficult task but thanks to very good scientists such as Dr John Ioannidis from Stanford and his team the IFR is known for a very long period of time and long before vaccines were available

And it's about 0.15% (global average IFR)

In subsequent publications by this author and others it is now understood that the IFR for most age groups is even lower than it was thought. And the estimates are now available in a number of publications.

Covid-19 was always a mild disease for the vast majority of people and all the restrictions and lockdowns could have never been justified given the profile of this disease. They have failed anyway.
Those who supported lockdowns and other types of restrictions have lined up with narratives that have no basis on science and epidemiology.

Here are some good numbers to have in mind.

www.medrxiv.org...

Infection fatality rates per age group

0.0003% - 0-19yrs
0.003% - 20-29yrs
0.011% - 30-39yrs
0.035% - 40-49yrs
0.129% - 50-59yrs
0.501% - 60-69yrs

Those below the age of 50 and with no co-morbidities are in very low or extremely low risk from Covid. It was already known long time ago.

a reply to: chr0naut

In general your analysis above shows lack of understanding of what is important in epidemiology. And it's not the first time you are ending in your own 'analysis' or making a range of claims that are not correct.

I recall earlier where you conflated the IFR with the CFR when speaking about MERS and when you claiming that countries had a 10% death rate from Covid without even specificying which of the two who are talking about.

jamanetwork.com...

Estimates of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.2 Subvariant Severity in New England

Cohort study on Mortality Rates

Findings

In this cohort study of 101 470 patients, mortality rates were 0.7% for Delta (B.1.617.2), 0.4% for Omicron (B.1.1.529), and 0.3% for Omicron (BA.2) subvariants. After adjusting for confounding factors, the risk of death was significantly lower with the Omicron subvariant BA.2 compared with those of the Omicron and Delta variants.

Meaning

Observational data that adjusts for confounders suggest that the Omicron BA.2 variant is intrinsically less severe than previous variants.

As a result and as time passes new variants are becoming more transmissible and less severe than previous variants which also has a direct impact on the Infection fatality rate.

So the question the OP has asked has been answered and could be answered easily.

The global average IFR was 0.15% before vaccines were available.

It is significantly lower at the moment given the immunity in the populations.

I think the real problem with covid is the stupidity rate, it's definitely higher than the IFR, exponentially.

www.medrxiv.org...

Protection afforded by prior infection against SARS-CoV-2 reinfection with the Omicron variant

CONCLUSIONS

Protection afforded by prior infection in preventing symptomatic reinfection with Alpha, Beta, or Delta is robust, at about 90%. While such protection against reinfection with Omicron is lower, it is still considerable at nearly 60%. Prior-infection protection against hospitalization or death at reinfection appears robust, regardless of variant.

Emphasizing the last point. Prior Infection protection against hospitalisations or death at reinfection appears robust regardless of variant. Understanding the power of natural immunity ever if someone has chosen to get vaccinated prior to infection or has been vaccinated after getting infected (not necessary and frankly at odds with basic immunology). Hence the IFR will becoming lower and lower as time passes.

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0
I think the real problem with covid is the stupidity rate, it's definitely higher than the IFR, exponentially.

Well, you also have the vaccine apologists and denialists of reality who are trying to peddle the debunked official narratives long time after they have been refuted.

Earlier the discussion was made that IFR which is still low in most countries was a legitimate reason for lengthy lockdowns. As if lockdowns did any good (look above at how a British scientist debunked them long time ago) and as if the low IFR justified lockdowns in the first place.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
jamanetwork.com...

Estimates of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.2 Subvariant Severity in New England

Cohort study on Mortality Rates

Findings

In this cohort study of 101 470 patients, mortality rates were 0.7% for Delta (B.1.617.2), 0.4% for Omicron (B.1.1.529), and 0.3% for Omicron (BA.2) subvariants. After adjusting for confounding factors, the risk of death was significantly lower with the Omicron subvariant BA.2 compared with those of the Omicron and Delta variants.

Meaning

Observational data that adjusts for confounders suggest that the Omicron BA.2 variant is intrinsically less severe than previous variants.

As a result and as time passes new variants are becoming more transmissible and less severe than previous variants which also has a direct impact on the Infection fatality rate.

So the question the OP has asked has been answered and could be answered easily.

The global average IFR was 0.15% before vaccines were available.

It is significantly lower at the moment given the immunity in the populations.

So the least deadly variants IFR was twice the figure you keep quoting.

Well done.

www.medrxiv.org...


Infection fatality rate of COVID-19 in community-dwelling populations with emphasis on the elderly: An overview

Conclusions The IFR of COVID-19 in community-dwelling elderly people is lower than previously reported. Very low IFRs were confirmed in the youngest populations.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: ScepticScot


And again to emphasize how good the lockdowns have been

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.

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

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

No need for vaccine AND lockdown apologetics or defending of the narratives and the pharmaceuticals.

Man selling book has opinion shocker.

a reply to: ScepticScot

www.medrxiv.org...

Infection fatality rates per age group in the absence of vaccination or prior Infection

0.0003% - 0-19yrs
0.003% - 20-29yrs
0.011% - 30-39yrs
0.035% - 40-49yrs
0.129% - 50-59yrs
0.501% - 60-69yrs

Most age groups have a very low infection fatality rate and much lower than the average global IFR

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: ScepticScot


And again to emphasize how good the lockdowns have been

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.

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

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

No need for vaccine AND lockdown apologetics or defending of the narratives and the pharmaceuticals.

Man selling book has opinion shocker.

I know you can't have a reasonable and valid argument against this.

He debunked the lockdowns long time ago.

a reply to: ScepticScot

www.telegraph.co.uk...


Lockdowns put us at the mercy of disease
We are experiencing a predictable perturbation in our ecological relationship with the organisms that are capable of causing serious disease

It is now widely acknowledged that lockdowns caused harm to our already stretched health service, with many of the direct consequences such as increased cancer and cardiovascular deaths being reported regularly. Most of these harms were entirely predictable. Less obvious was how some of the more indirect consequences of lockdown might play out, such as the effect on our relationship with other pathogens circulating within our communities

Professor Sunetra Gupta.

More debunking of the lockdowns

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: ScepticScot


And again to emphasize how good the lockdowns have been

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.

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

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

No need for vaccine AND lockdown apologetics or defending of the narratives and the pharmaceuticals.

Man selling book has opinion shocker.

I know you can't have a reasonable and valid argument against this.

He debunked the lockdowns long time ago.

No he offers his opinions. Some of which I might even agree with.

He hasn't 'debunked' lockdowns.