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

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


To describe how lethal a disease is and make the appropriate comparisons we take global average IFRs. What do you think it means by saying that the Spanish Flu had an IFR of 10%

That was the global average IFR.

The topic isn't the Spanish flu.

To describe how lethal a disease is and make the appropriate comparisons we take global average IFRs. What do you think it means by saying that the Spanish Flu had an IFR of 10%

That was the global average IFR.

Hence the IFR of Covid-19 is 0.15%

The topic still isn't Spanish flu.

Spanish Flu IFR = 10%
Covid-19 IFR = 0.15%

Covid-19 is a very mild disease for most of us regarding the propaganda and misinformation

Topic still isn't the Soanish flu.

Just want to remind everyone that peer reviewed science has now found that “at a global level, PRE-VACCINATION IFR may have been as low as 0.03% and 0.07% for 0–59 and 0–69 year old people, respectively.” This was never worse than the flu. We were lied to. sciencedirect.com...

SOURCE


Checkmate.

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


To describe how lethal a disease is and make the appropriate comparisons we take global average IFRs. What do you think it means by saying that the Spanish Flu had an IFR of 10%

That was the global average IFR.

The topic isn't the Spanish flu.

To describe how lethal a disease is and make the appropriate comparisons we take global average IFRs. What do you think it means by saying that the Spanish Flu had an IFR of 10%

That was the global average IFR.

Hence the IFR of Covid-19 is 0.15%

The topic still isn't Spanish flu.

Spanish Flu IFR = 10%
Covid-19 IFR = 0.15%

Covid-19 is a very mild disease for most of us regarding the propaganda and misinformation

Topic still isn't the Soanish flu.

Spanish Flu IFR = 10%
Covid-19 IFR = 0.15%

Covid-19 is a very mild disease for most of us regarding the propaganda and misinformation.

But you are trying to present Covid-19 as something that it is not. You have been engaging in vaccine apologetics and denialism of reality and you have been defending the pharmaceuticals. So the motivation is clear.

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

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


To describe how lethal a disease is and make the appropriate comparisons we take global average IFRs. What do you think it means by saying that the Spanish Flu had an IFR of 10%

That was the global average IFR.

The topic isn't the Spanish flu.

To describe how lethal a disease is and make the appropriate comparisons we take global average IFRs. What do you think it means by saying that the Spanish Flu had an IFR of 10%

That was the global average IFR.

Hence the IFR of Covid-19 is 0.15%

The topic still isn't Spanish flu.

Spanish Flu IFR = 10%
Covid-19 IFR = 0.15%

Covid-19 is a very mild disease for most of us regarding the propaganda and misinformation

Topic still isn't the Soanish flu.

Just want to remind everyone that peer reviewed science has now found that “at a global level, PRE-VACCINATION IFR may have been as low as 0.03% and 0.07% for 0–59 and 0–69 year old people, respectively.” This was never worse than the flu. We were lied to. sciencedirect.com...

SOURCE

Checkmate.

And from another paper by the same author

www.medrxiv.org...

Age-stratified infection fatality rate of COVID-19 in the non-elderly informed from pre-vaccination national seroprevalence studies

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

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

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


To describe how lethal a disease is and make the appropriate comparisons we take global average IFRs. What do you think it means by saying that the Spanish Flu had an IFR of 10%

That was the global average IFR.

The topic isn't the Spanish flu.

To describe how lethal a disease is and make the appropriate comparisons we take global average IFRs. What do you think it means by saying that the Spanish Flu had an IFR of 10%

That was the global average IFR.

Hence the IFR of Covid-19 is 0.15%

The topic still isn't Spanish flu.

Spanish Flu IFR = 10%
Covid-19 IFR = 0.15%

Covid-19 is a very mild disease for most of us regarding the propaganda and misinformation

Topic still isn't the Soanish flu.

Just want to remind everyone that peer reviewed science has now found that “at a global level, PRE-VACCINATION IFR may have been as low as 0.03% and 0.07% for 0–59 and 0–69 year old people, respectively.” This was never worse than the flu. We were lied to. sciencedirect.com...

SOURCE

Checkmate.

The OP doesn't mention Spanish flu.

How does the horsey move again?

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

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


To describe how lethal a disease is and make the appropriate comparisons we take global average IFRs. What do you think it means by saying that the Spanish Flu had an IFR of 10%

That was the global average IFR.

The topic isn't the Spanish flu.

To describe how lethal a disease is and make the appropriate comparisons we take global average IFRs. What do you think it means by saying that the Spanish Flu had an IFR of 10%

That was the global average IFR.

Hence the IFR of Covid-19 is 0.15%

The topic still isn't Spanish flu.

Spanish Flu IFR = 10%
Covid-19 IFR = 0.15%

Covid-19 is a very mild disease for most of us regarding the propaganda and misinformation

Topic still isn't the Soanish flu.

Spanish Flu IFR = 10%
Covid-19 IFR = 0.15%

Covid-19 is a very mild disease for most of us regarding the propaganda and misinformation.

But you are trying to present Covid-19 as something that it is not. You have been engaging in vaccine apologetics and denialism of reality and you have been defending the pharmaceuticals. So the motivation is clear.

You keep posting the same numbers over and over.

Still not the topic.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

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


To describe how lethal a disease is and make the appropriate comparisons we take global average IFRs. What do you think it means by saying that the Spanish Flu had an IFR of 10%

That was the global average IFR.

The topic isn't the Spanish flu.

To describe how lethal a disease is and make the appropriate comparisons we take global average IFRs. What do you think it means by saying that the Spanish Flu had an IFR of 10%

That was the global average IFR.

Hence the IFR of Covid-19 is 0.15%

The topic still isn't Spanish flu.

Spanish Flu IFR = 10%
Covid-19 IFR = 0.15%

Covid-19 is a very mild disease for most of us regarding the propaganda and misinformation

Topic still isn't the Soanish flu.

Spanish Flu IFR = 10%
Covid-19 IFR = 0.15%

Covid-19 is a very mild disease for most of us regarding the propaganda and misinformation.

But you are trying to present Covid-19 as something that it is not. You have been engaging in vaccine apologetics and denialism of reality and you have been defending the pharmaceuticals. So the motivation is clear.

You keep posting the same numbers over and over.

Still not the topic.

It looks like you dint want to hear the truth about infection fatality rates and you don't want to accept Covid-19 has a very low IFR.

You are engaging in denialism for once more.

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

a reply to: Asmodeus3

IFR by age.

www.thelancet.com...(21)02867-1/fulltext


ble 1COVID-19 IFR estimates by age
IFR and 95% uncertainty interval
1 year 0·0054% (0·0021–0·0114)
2 years 0·0040% (0·0020–0·0070)
3 years 0·0032% (0·0019–0·0051)
4 years 0·0027% (0·0018–0·0043)
5 years 0·0024% (0·0017–0·0039)
6 years 0·0023% (0·0016–0·0038)
7 years 0·0023% (0·0015–0·0039)
8 years 0·0023% (0·0015–0·0042)
9 years 0·0025% (0·0016–0·0046)
10 years 0·0028% (0·0018–0·0050)
11 years 0·0031% (0·0021–0·0056)
12 years 0·0036% (0·0024–0·0063)
13 years 0·0042% (0·0028–0·0073)
14 years 0·0050% (0·0034–0·0084)
15 years 0·0060% (0·0041–0·0097)
16 years 0·0071% (0·0050–0·0113)
17 years 0·0085% (0·0060–0·0134)
18 years 0·0100% (0·0071–0·0157)
19 years 0·0118% (0·0084–0·0183)
20 years 0·0138% (0·0098–0·0214)
21 years 0·0162% (0·0114–0·0250)
22 years 0·0188% (0·0133–0·0292)
23 years 0·0219% (0·0153–0·0335)
24 years 0·0254% (0·0178–0·0385)
25 years 0·0293% (0·0207–0·0441)
26 years 0·0337% (0·0241–0·0504)
27 years 0·0386% (0·0280–0·0575)
28 years 0·0442% (0·0324–0·0658)
29 years 0·0504% (0·0372–0·0757)
30 years 0·0573% (0·0418–0·0870)
31 years 0·0650% (0·0469–0·0983)
32 years 0·0735% (0·0526–0·1108)
33 years 0·0829% (0·0590–0·1246)
34 years 0·0932% (0·0663–0·1398)
35 years 0·1046% (0·0747–0·1564)
36 years 0·1171% (0·0842–0·1746)
37 years 0·1307% (0·0950–0·1944)
38 years 0·1455% (0·1070–0·2161)
39 years 0·1616% (0·1197–0·2420)
40 years 0·1789% (0·1319–0·2706)
41 years 0·1976% (0·1440–0·3038)
42 years 0·2177% (0·1575–0·3397)
43 years 0·2391% (0·1714–0·3731)
44 years 0·2620% (0·1861–0·4122)
45 years 0·2863% (0·2016–0·4540)
46 years 0·3119% (0·2176–0·4980)
47 years 0·3389% (0·2350–0·5437)
48 years 0·3672% (0·2541–0·5906)
49 years 0·3968% (0·2748–0·6380)
50 years 0·4278% (0·2958–0·6858)
51 years 0·4606% (0·3180–0·7346)
52 years 0·4958% (0·3430–0·7855)
53 years 0·5342% (0·3720–0·8398)
54 years 0·5766% (0·4028–0·8992)
55 years 0·6242% (0·4358–0·9715)
56 years 0·6785% (0·4736–1·0602)
57 years 0·7413% (0·5181–1·1621)
58 years 0·8149% (0·5698–1·2796)
59 years 0·9022% (0·6304–1·4162)
60 years 1·0035% (0·7002–1·5727)
61 years 1·1162% (0·7776–1·7462)
62 years 1·2413% (0·8635–1·9438)
63 years 1·3803% (0·9588–2·1644)
64 years 1·5346% (1·0645–2·4094)
65 years 1·7058% (1·1817–2·6813)
66 years 1·8957% (1·3117–2·9830)
67 years 2·1064% (1·4557–3·3175)
68 years 2·3399% (1·6154–3·6881)
69 years 2·5986% (1·7928–4·0983)
70 years 2·8851% (1·9893–4·5519

a reply to: Asmodeus3


IFR north America at start of pandemic.


Canada 1·059%
USA 1·280%

a reply to: Asmodeus3



UK 1·568%

Seems higher than the 0.15% you keep quoting.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Asmodeus3


IFR north America at start of pandemic.


Canada 1·059%
USA 1·280%

You cannot measure IFR at the start of the pandemic as it will be inaccurate. You measure IFR over a period of time when you have an idea about the number of total infections.as you need to know that numbers of asymptomatic individuals and those who have minor infections and never get tested.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Asmodeus3



UK 1·568%

Seems higher than the 0.15% you keep quoting.

As above. You clearly haven't understood what IFR is.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Asmodeus3


IFR north America at start of pandemic.


Canada 1·059%
USA 1·280%

You cannot measure IFR at the start of the pandemic as it will be inaccurate. You measure IFR over a other period of time when you have an idea about the number of total infections.as you need to know that numbers of asymptomatic individuals and those who have minor infections and never get tested.

It's IFR at start of the pandemic. Not measured at start of pandemic.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Asmodeus3



UK 1·568%

Seems higher than the 0.15% you keep quoting.

As above. You clearly haven't understood what IFR is.

As above, again the lack of understanding is yours.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Asmodeus3


IFR north America at start of pandemic.


Canada 1·059%
USA 1·280%

You cannot measure IFR at the start of the pandemic as it will be inaccurate. You measure IFR over a other period of time when you have an idea about the number of total infections.as you need to know that numbers of asymptomatic individuals and those who have minor infections and never get tested.

It's IFR at start of the pandemic. Not measured at start of pandemic.

You are clearly not making sense. Let me repeat this for you

You cannot measure IFR at the start of the pandemic as it will be inaccurate. You measure IFR over a period of time when you have an idea about the number of total infections.as you need to know that numbers of asymptomatic individuals and those who have minor infections and never get tested.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Asmodeus3



UK 1·568%

Seems higher than the 0.15% you keep quoting.

As above. You clearly haven't understood what IFR is.

As above, again the lack of understanding is yours.

I wouldn't think so.
You clearly don't understand what IFR is and by your own admission you don't have any qualifications or experience in science and epidemiology. So make sure you don't just copy paste from links.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Asmodeus3


IFR north America at start of pandemic.


Canada 1·059%
USA 1·280%

You cannot measure IFR at the start of the pandemic as it will be inaccurate. You measure IFR over a other period of time when you have an idea about the number of total infections.as you need to know that numbers of asymptomatic individuals and those who have minor infections and never get tested.

It's IFR at start of the pandemic. Not measured at start of pandemic.

You are clearly not making sense. Let me repeat this for you

You cannot measure IFR at the start of the pandemic as it will be inaccurate. You measure IFR over a period of time when you have an idea about the number of total infections.as you need to know that numbers of asymptomatic individuals and those who have minor infections and never get tested.

Try reading again.

It wasn't measured at the start.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Asmodeus3



UK 1·568%

Seems higher than the 0.15% you keep quoting.

As above. You clearly haven't understood what IFR is.

As above, again the lack of understanding is yours.

I wouldn't think so.
You clearly don't understand what IFR is and by your own admission you don't have any qualifications or experience in science and epidemiology. So make sure you don't just copy paste from links.

Unlike your qualifications which are ???

ETA also have to point out the hilarity of this when you post the same text over and over and claim lockdown was 'debunked' based on a link to a book review.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: gortex

Begs the question if China created and released COVID how come it effects Chinese and South Asians worse than Westerners.

Who says it does?

And who said that China created and released the virus??

Well, to be more accurate, it was outsourced to China because the gain of function research was called out in the US. Then the virus bioweapon escaped the lab in Wuhan and they tried to cover it up by saying it was in bat meat in a wet market. Repeat of aids and green monkeys.
Make no mistake, the CCP is no better than the Illuminati bosses in the US.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Asmodeus3



UK 1·568%Text

Seems higher than the 0.15% you keep quoting.

You seem to be confused on what IFR or don't want to understand it's meaning.

0.15% is the global average IFR.

To use other numbers to justify your political ideological narratives is absurd. Anyone else can do the same thing by using a smaller figure then the average and go by this figure in a given country.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Asmodeus3



UK 1·568%Text

Seems higher than the 0.15% you keep quoting.

You seem to be confused on what IFR or don't want to understand it's meaning.

0.15% is the global average IFR.

To use other numbers to justify your political ideological narratives is absurd. Anyone else can do the same thing by using a smaller figure then the average and go by this figure in a given country.

Yes global IFR. (Not an average by the way).

I have given you IFR for developed countries.

Policy is generally decided at a country level. (Or lower).