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
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 ???

The lockdowns have been debunked by many scientists and epidemiologists.

They were never proven to be good epidemiological measures in the first place. They were asserted as such and imposed with political decisions.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

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).

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.

For once more you don't even read what is linked.

Average global IFR of 0.15%

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

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 ???

The lockdowns have been debunked by many scientists and epidemiologists.

They were never proven to be good epidemiological measures in the first place. They were asserted as such and imposed with political decisions.

No answer to what your qualifications are, despite asking what mine (or anyone who disagrees with you) are repeatedly.

Your claim they are 'debunked" is just your opinion.

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
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 ???

The lockdowns have been debunked by many scientists and epidemiologists.

They were never proven to be good epidemiological measures in the first place. They were asserted as such and imposed with political decisions.

No answer to what your qualifications are, despite asking what mine (or anyone who disagrees with you) are repeatedly.

Your claim they are 'debunked" is just your opinion.

No it is not my opinion but the professional views of scientists and experts.

And yes they argue with evidence that lockdowns have been debunked. It's there.

If you consider the non Covid excess deaths they were not just damaging but catastrophic.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

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).

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.

For once more you don't even read what is linked.

Average global IFR of 0.15%

If its an average its even less accurate.

IFR is deaths divided by estimated infections. That isn't an average on your population.

I suspect he is just using average as phrase however.

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

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 ???

The lockdowns have been debunked by many scientists and epidemiologists.

They were never proven to be good epidemiological measures in the first place. They were asserted as such and imposed with political decisions.

No answer to what your qualifications are, despite asking what mine (or anyone who disagrees with you) are repeatedly.

Your claim they are 'debunked" is just your opinion.

No it is not my opinion but the professional views of scientists and experts.

And yes they argue with evidence that lockdowns have been debunked. It's there.

If you consider the non Covid excess deaths they were not just damaging but catastrophic.

And many other scientists and experts disagree.

Did you read the 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

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 ???

The lockdowns have been debunked by many scientists and epidemiologists.

They were never proven to be good epidemiological measures in the first place. They were asserted as such and imposed with political decisions.

No answer to what your qualifications are, despite asking what mine (or anyone who disagrees with you) are repeatedly.

Your claim they are 'debunked" is just your opinion.

By your own admission you are not an expert or have any experience in epidemiology or science. Trying to argue in matters you seem not to understand isn't a wise option. It seems you don't even know what IFR is and how it is measured.

Professor Woolhouse, Gupta, John Ioannidis, and many others, don't have just opinions. They have knowledge and it's nowhere near your unsubstantiated assertions of the the success of the lockdowns and/or on how the IFR is measured and what it is.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

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).

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.

For once more you don't even read what is linked.

Average global IFR of 0.15%

If its an average its even less accurate.

IFR is deaths divided by estimated infections. That isn't an average on your population.

I suspect he is just using average as phrase however.

You claimed it wasn't an average above. Now you change it? It seems you don't read anything.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

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).

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.

For once more you don't even read what is linked.

Average global IFR of 0.15%

If its an average its even less accurate.

IFR is deaths divided by estimated infections. That isn't an average on your population.

I suspect he is just using average as phrase however.

Average means average and it's different from the median. He would have used median if he wanted to and he has used a median in other publications but you never read any.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

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).

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.

For once more you don't even read what is linked.

Average global IFR of 0.15%

If its an average its even less accurate.

IFR is deaths divided by estimated infections. That isn't an average on your population.

I suspect he is just using average as phrase however.

You claimed it wasn't an average above. Now you change it? It seems you don't read anything.

I'm not changing it. I said it isnt an average both times.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

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).

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.

For once more you don't even read what is linked.

Average global IFR of 0.15%

If its an average its even less accurate.

IFR is deaths divided by estimated infections. That isn't an average on your population.

I suspect he is just using average as phrase however.

Average means average and it's different from the median. He would have used median if he wanted to and he has used a median in other publications but you never read any.

Yes and dividing deaths by infections isn't an average.

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

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 ???

The lockdowns have been debunked by many scientists and epidemiologists.

They were never proven to be good epidemiological measures in the first place. They were asserted as such and imposed with political decisions.

No answer to what your qualifications are, despite asking what mine (or anyone who disagrees with you) are repeatedly.

Your claim they are 'debunked" is just your opinion.

By your own admission you are not an expert or have any experience in epidemiology or science. Trying to argue in matters you seem not to understand isn't a wise option. It seems you don't even know what IFR is and how it is measured.

Professor Woolhouse, Gupta, John Ioannidis, and many others, don't have just opinions. They have knowledge and it's nowhere near your unsubstantiated assertions of the the success of the lockdowns and/or on how the IFR is measured and what it is.

What are your qualifications ?

I know IFR is. You on the other hand seem to think it's a single figure.

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
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).

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.

For once more you don't even read what is linked.

Average global IFR of 0.15%

If its an average its even less accurate.

IFR is deaths divided by estimated infections. That isn't an average on your population.

I suspect he is just using average as phrase however.

You claimed it wasn't an average above. Now you change it? It seems you don't read anything.

I'm not changing it. I said it isnt an average both times.

You are trying hard.. but you are not very convincing I am afraid.

Conclusions:

All systematic evaluations of seroprevalence data converge that SARS-CoV-2 infection is widely spread globally. Acknowledging residual uncertainties, the available evidence suggests an 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.

As above, average global IFR of 0.15%
In case you think he wasn't referring to averages.

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

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 ???

The lockdowns have been debunked by many scientists and epidemiologists.

They were never proven to be good epidemiological measures in the first place. They were asserted as such and imposed with political decisions.

No answer to what your qualifications are, despite asking what mine (or anyone who disagrees with you) are repeatedly.

Your claim they are 'debunked" is just your opinion.

By your own admission you are not an expert or have any experience in epidemiology or science. Trying to argue in matters you seem not to understand isn't a wise option. It seems you don't even know what IFR is and how it is measured.

Professor Woolhouse, Gupta, John Ioannidis, and many others, don't have just opinions. They have knowledge and it's nowhere near your unsubstantiated assertions of the the success of the lockdowns and/or on how the IFR is measured and what it is.

What are your qualifications ?

I know IFR is. You on the other hand seem to think it's a single figure.

The IFR of a particular disease is a single figure. For example the IFR of the Spanish Flu was 10%
How did they estimate this? 50 million deaths over 500 million infections.

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

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 ???

The lockdowns have been debunked by many scientists and epidemiologists.

They were never proven to be good epidemiological measures in the first place. They were asserted as such and imposed with political decisions.

No answer to what your qualifications are, despite asking what mine (or anyone who disagrees with you) are repeatedly.

Your claim they are 'debunked" is just your opinion.

By your own admission you are not an expert or have any experience in epidemiology or science. Trying to argue in matters you seem not to understand isn't a wise option. It seems you don't even know what IFR is and how it is measured.

Professor Woolhouse, Gupta, John Ioannidis, and many others, don't have just opinions. They have knowledge and it's nowhere near your unsubstantiated assertions of the the success of the lockdowns and/or on how the IFR is measured and what it is.

What are your qualifications ?

I know IFR is. You on the other hand seem to think it's a single figure.

You've constantly been refuted, and thinking you're convincing anyone with this nonsense is futile.

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

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 ???

The lockdowns have been debunked by many scientists and epidemiologists.

They were never proven to be good epidemiological measures in the first place. They were asserted as such and imposed with political decisions.

No answer to what your qualifications are, despite asking what mine (or anyone who disagrees with you) are repeatedly.

Your claim they are 'debunked" is just your opinion.

By your own admission you are not an expert or have any experience in epidemiology or science. Trying to argue in matters you seem not to understand isn't a wise option. It seems you don't even know what IFR is and how it is measured.

Professor Woolhouse, Gupta, John Ioannidis, and many others, don't have just opinions. They have knowledge and it's nowhere near your unsubstantiated assertions of the the success of the lockdowns and/or on how the IFR is measured and what it is.

What are your qualifications ?

I know IFR is. You on the other hand seem to think it's a single figure.

It doesn't matter what I have.

What I find hilarious is when top scientists and experts are challenged by those who have zero qualifications on matters they have no knowledge or experience.. And the reason they are challenged is because the font peddle the official political and ideological narratives.

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

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 ???

The lockdowns have been debunked by many scientists and epidemiologists.

They were never proven to be good epidemiological measures in the first place. They were asserted as such and imposed with political decisions.

No answer to what your qualifications are, despite asking what mine (or anyone who disagrees with you) are repeatedly.

Your claim they are 'debunked" is just your opinion.

By your own admission you are not an expert or have any experience in epidemiology or science. Trying to argue in matters you seem not to understand isn't a wise option. It seems you don't even know what IFR is and how it is measured.

Professor Woolhouse, Gupta, John Ioannidis, and many others, don't have just opinions. They have knowledge and it's nowhere near your unsubstantiated assertions of the the success of the lockdowns and/or on how the IFR is measured and what it is.

What are your qualifications ?

I know IFR is. You on the other hand seem to think it's a single figure.

It doesn't matter what I have.

What I find hilarious is when top scientists and experts are challenged by those who have zero qualifications on matters they have no knowledge or experience.. And the reason they are challenged is because the font peddle the official political and ideological narratives.

It's an appeal to authority fallacy. If a PhD peddles studies done by paid off doctors and faked trials as Pfizer has been caught doing in the past, that's better than the actual data and facts.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: network dude

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.

Doesn't explain the increase in excess deaths.

It's funny however that you think it's conspiracy theorists who aren't easily led.

Wait, coupling COVID with all the nasties we usually get would not explain an increase in excess deaths?

Your DERP is moving too rapidly for your posts. Slow that DERP down.

Try thinking about that for a moment.

You might want to reallocate the DERP.

Let me know if/when you get it.

nope, been thinking on it a bit now. let's see if you can pinpoint my flaw in logic. Say 200,000 people a year die from flu, averaged over 7 years. (hypothetical numbers)
But in 2021 250,000 died from Covid and 23 died from flu.

A person such as myself would think, "after hearing how piss poor the testing was, and knowing how hard "they" wanted to to pump up the covid numbers, it looks like covid was mildly deadly, and they rebranded the flu deaths as covid."

So seeing as how you have doubled down on the DERP, it's now up to you to explain to me why that line of thinking is so far off the mark.

Good luck sport.

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

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 ???

The lockdowns have been debunked by many scientists and epidemiologists.

They were never proven to be good epidemiological measures in the first place. They were asserted as such and imposed with political decisions.

No answer to what your qualifications are, despite asking what mine (or anyone who disagrees with you) are repeatedly.

Your claim they are 'debunked" is just your opinion.

By your own admission you are not an expert or have any experience in epidemiology or science. Trying to argue in matters you seem not to understand isn't a wise option. It seems you don't even know what IFR is and how it is measured.

Professor Woolhouse, Gupta, John Ioannidis, and many others, don't have just opinions. They have knowledge and it's nowhere near your unsubstantiated assertions of the the success of the lockdowns and/or on how the IFR is measured and what it is.

What are your qualifications ?

I know IFR is. You on the other hand seem to think it's a single figure.

The IFR of a particular disease is a single figure. For example the IFR of the Spanish Flu was 10%
How did they estimate this? 50 million deaths over 500 million infections.

No it isn't.

IFR is specific to the population you are looking at.

You have previously posted IFR by age that shows this.

What was it you posted about quoting text you don't understand?

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

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 ???

The lockdowns have been debunked by many scientists and epidemiologists.

They were never proven to be good epidemiological measures in the first place. They were asserted as such and imposed with political decisions.

No answer to what your qualifications are, despite asking what mine (or anyone who disagrees with you) are repeatedly.

Your claim they are 'debunked" is just your opinion.

By your own admission you are not an expert or have any experience in epidemiology or science. Trying to argue in matters you seem not to understand isn't a wise option. It seems you don't even know what IFR is and how it is measured.

Professor Woolhouse, Gupta, John Ioannidis, and many others, don't have just opinions. They have knowledge and it's nowhere near your unsubstantiated assertions of the the success of the lockdowns and/or on how the IFR is measured and what it is.

What are your qualifications ?

I know IFR is. You on the other hand seem to think it's a single figure.

You've constantly been refuted, and thinking you're convincing anyone with this nonsense is futile.

If you say so must be true.

Only see post above. The poster I replied to has posted different IFR figures.