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

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
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

The same professor who predicted covid would only kill 1 in 10,000 people infected in the UK.

Good track record on covid...

originally posted by: ScepticScot

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.

He has debunked the lockdowns long time ago.

Your narrative has been refuted long time ago by many scientists.

www.theguardian.com...

And again to emphasize how good the lockdowns have been

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 twice now.. 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

.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
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

The same professor who predicted covid would only kill 1 in 10,000 people infected in the UK.

Good track record on covid...

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.

And again the debunking of the lockdowns from Professor Sunetra Gupta and Professor Mark Woolhouse for once more.

What are your qualifications in epidemiology and infectious diseases? Let me guess. You don't have any.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

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.

He has debunked the lockdowns long time ago.

Your narrative has been refuted long time ago by many scientists.

www.theguardian.com...

And again to emphasize how good the lockdowns have been

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 twice now.. 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

.

Keep posting the same link over and over again doesn't change the content you know.

It's his opinions on a policy. You don't debunk a policy you debunk errors of fact.

Have you read his book?

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


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.

He has debunked the lockdowns long time ago.

Your narrative has been refuted long time ago by many scientists.

www.theguardian.com...

And again to emphasize how good the lockdowns have been

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 twice now.. 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

.

Keep posting the same link over and over again doesn't change the content you know.

It's his opinions on a policy. You don't debunk a policy you debunk errors of fact.

Have you read his book?

Excess deaths in England and Wales
It can't be climate change by the way... Maybe lockdowns and the response to Covid?

www.newscientist.com...


There are thousands more UK deaths than usual and we don’t know why

Since April, there have been 22,500 more deaths than expected in the UK. Health experts are concerned but unsure of the causes – which could include covid-19, population ageing and NHS problems

The increase in deaths has been seen across the UK. Between 2 April and 12 August in England and Wales, for example, 202,491 deaths were registered, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS). This is 19,756 higher than the five-year average for this period – about an 11 per cent increase

So in England and Wales between the 2nd of April and 12th of August 2022 there are 19,756 more deaths than the five year average for the same period. And of course the are no explanations so far for this very large number. Huge number I would say. There are excess non-Covid deaths despite the attempts made by the author to argue that there could be some Covid-19 deaths.

The reality is shocking and in a period of about 133 days there were 148-149 'mysterious' excess deaths per day.

Many more since then.


Excess deaths? Yes, but it's not climate change or the Republicans in the US.

a reply to: ScepticScot

The narratives you are trying to peddle have been repeatedly refuted by several scientists and academics. And in these threads these narratives have been taken apart and dismantled.

What are your qualifications again? You seem to try to dismiss Professor Woolhouse, Professor Gupta and everyone else who has destroyed the narratives you believe in. Not a good tactic by the way.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

What is your qualifications in epidemiology and infectious diseases? Let me guess. You don't have any.

This again?

Aren't you the same poster who embarrassed themselves by not understanding the difference between a medical doctor and PHD?

What qualifications do you have on this subject? If we restricted it to people with relevant degrees I suspect the threads on Covid would be very short.

If your point is we should uncritically accept the opinions of those qualified then you better apply that to your self. Lockdowns, vaccination and pretty much every measure you disagree with was based on scientific advise from people vastly more qualified than you.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Asmodeus3

What is your qualifications in epidemiology and infectious diseases? Let me guess. You don't have any.

This again?

Aren't you the same poster who embarrassed themselves by not understanding the difference between a medical doctor and PHD?

What qualifications do you have on this subject? If we restricted it to people with relevant degrees I suspect the threads on Covid would be very short.

If your point is we should uncritically accept the opinions of those qualified then you better apply that to your self. Lockdowns, vaccination and pretty much every measure you disagree with was based on scientific advise from people vastly more qualified than you.

No I am not as I was aware of what the differences were.

Excess deaths

There are thousands more UK deaths than usual and we don’t know why

Since April, there have been 22,500 more deaths than expected in the UK. Health experts are concerned but unsure of the causes – which could include covid-19, population ageing and NHS problems

The increase in deaths has been seen across the UK. Between 2 April and 12 August in England and Wales, for example, 202,491 deaths were registered, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS). This is 19,756 higher than the five-year average for this period – about an 11 per cent increase

Lockdowns have been debunked together with all other absurd restrictions.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

You didn't answer

What are your qualifications?

Have you read the book?

Should we uncritically accept opinions based on qualifications?

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: tanstaafl
High amplification does not return any higher false positives than correct and reasonable levels of amplification.

That false statement right there disqualifies you from speaking further on the subject. Your ignorance is overshadowed only by your petty-tyrant-wanna-be arrogance.

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.

this cannot be stated as fact yet, but those who think a little, questioned why and how the flu was totally gone while Covid was here, and some of us, think it's possible it didn't really go away, but was lumped into the covid numbers, to make covid look like it was the deadliest thing evar. You are free to believe the official narrative as you most certainly will, but one day, you may have to look back and wonder how you were to easily led down the wrong path.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Asmodeus3



Should we uncritically accept opinions based on qualifications?

Oh the irony!!!

originally posted by: network dude

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.

this cannot be stated as fact yet, but those who think a little, questioned why and how the flu was totally gone while Covid was here, and some of us, think it's possible it didn't really go away, but was lumped into the covid numbers, to make covid look like it was the deadliest thing evar. You are free to believe the official narrative as you most certainly will, but one day, you may have to look back and wonder how you were to easily led down the wrong path.

Excess deaths went up at the same time.

If Flu was repacked into covid the it would also have been the most deadly flu season in a century. Which would beg the question why not say its the flu?

One day you may have to look back and wonder why you believed irational conspiracy theories that so easily led you down the wrong path.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Asmodeus3



Should we uncritically accept opinions based on qualifications?

Oh the irony!!!

Still no answers. As usual.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Asmodeus3

You didn't answer

What are your qualifications?

Have you read the book?

Should we uncritically accept opinions based on qualifications?

Here are the statistics again for most age groups which make Covid a minor issue for most of us. Unless someone is over 65 and with co-morbidities

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

And don't forget that the global average infection fatality rate is very low regardless of the attempts made to present it as the greatest threat to humanity.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

IFR = 0.15%

In comparison the Spanish Flu has an IFR of around 10%

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Asmodeus3

You didn't answer

What are your qualifications?

Have you read the book?

Should we uncritically accept opinions based on qualifications?

Here are the statistics again for most age groups which make Covid a minor issue for most of us. Unless someone is over 65 and with co-morbidities

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

And don't forget that the global average infection fatality rate is very low regardless of the attempts made to present it as the greatest threat to humanity.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

IFR = 0.15%

In comparison the Spanish Flu has an IFR of around 10%

Which has what to do with the questions I asked?

originally posted by: network dude

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.

this cannot be stated as fact yet, but those who think a little, questioned why and how the flu was totally gone while Covid was here, and some of us, think it's possible it didn't really go away, but was lumped into the covid numbers, to make covid look like it was the deadliest thing evar. You are free to believe the official narrative as you most certainly will, but one day, you may have to look back and wonder how you were to easily led down the wrong path.

The member is trying hard to argue that the IFR of Covid-19 is not as low as it is presented in the scientific literature but as 'high' as it is presented in the MSM i.e engaging in misinformation and official propagandistic narratives.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: network dude

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.

this cannot be stated as fact yet, but those who think a little, questioned why and how the flu was totally gone while Covid was here, and some of us, think it's possible it didn't really go away, but was lumped into the covid numbers, to make covid look like it was the deadliest thing evar. You are free to believe the official narrative as you most certainly will, but one day, you may have to look back and wonder how you were to easily led down the wrong path.

The member is trying hard to argue that the IFR of Covid-19 is not as low as it is presented in the scientific literature but as 'high' as it is presented in the MSM i.e engaging in misinformation and official propagandistic narratives.

I have pointed out correctly that the population IFR for developed countries is much higher than .15% .

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: network dude

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.

this cannot be stated as fact yet, but those who think a little, questioned why and how the flu was totally gone while Covid was here, and some of us, think it's possible it didn't really go away, but was lumped into the covid numbers, to make covid look like it was the deadliest thing evar. You are free to believe the official narrative as you most certainly will, but one day, you may have to look back and wonder how you were to easily led down the wrong path.

Excess deaths went up at the same time.

If Flu was repacked into covid the it would also have been the most deadly flu season in a century. Which would beg the question why not say its the flu?

One day you may have to look back and wonder why you believed irational conspiracy theories that so easily led you down the wrong path.

and what if covid was a little bad, but once coupled with flu and other illnesses that used to exist, was all called "covid". I don't need you to believe me, I just like to have the placeholder here so when and if it's as I suspect, I can use it to show you how easily led you are. And I'm a conspiracy nut, behaving like a conspiracy nut. So I don't fear any reckoning from boot lickers. I'm crazy baby.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: network dude

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.

this cannot be stated as fact yet, but those who think a little, questioned why and how the flu was totally gone while Covid was here, and some of us, think it's possible it didn't really go away, but was lumped into the covid numbers, to make covid look like it was the deadliest thing evar. You are free to believe the official narrative as you most certainly will, but one day, you may have to look back and wonder how you were to easily led down the wrong path.

The member is trying hard to argue that the IFR of Covid-19 is not as low as it is presented in the scientific literature but as 'high' as it is presented in the MSM i.e engaging in misinformation and official propagandistic narratives.

I have pointed out correctly that the population IFR for developed countries is much higher than .15% .

And I have pointed several times that the average global IFR is 0.15%. In comparison the Spanish Flu had an IFR of 10%. That's meaningful comparisons..

We always take global averages and don't try to play politics using the IFR which is still low in most countries.

I see you make desperate attempts to justify the debunked lockdowns. But they have been debunked long time ago.