Italian Health Minister Under Investigation for Murder for Concealing COVID-19 Vaccine Deaths

a reply to: chr0naut

You just keep intentionally misleading people. I am still gobsmacked by the gall you have to keep posting this bs, after being exposed lying multiple times, all while ignoring the dead and disabled children that are getting no benefit from the junk vaccines that you pushed.

All of that study data was from 2020. From the part that you conveniently ignored, even though it's still a gross misrepresentation of the actual impacts of COVID. From your outdated study

The pooled CFR of COVID-19 in general population was 1.0% (95% CI: 1.0-3.0)

The last time I checked serotesting well over 80% of the population showed prior COVID infection. Most of the people that died from COVID, not just with a COVID postive junk PCR, were statistically past their life expectancy.

Nobody believes anything you say, including you.

You have an near zero percent accuracy on every bit of nonsense you promoted.

Here's your 10% CFR in real numbers.

source

We already know that 95% of COVID mortality in the US was people with multiple serious comorbidities and, predominantly, age above 70. We also know that serotesting has shown, as of around a year ago, that over 80% of the population has already been exposed to COVID. It is endemic and only a tiny percentage of the population hasn't been exposed. It's endemic and the majority of the ongoing public health effects are occuring in the vaccinated populations that destroyed their immune system with junk science experiments.

Case fatality rate is just how you are now misleading people, with numbers you don't understand and hope others won't either, for like the hundredth time on this site.

2023 study COVID IFR

The objective of this study was to accurately estimate the infection fatality rate (IFR) of COVID-19 among non-elderly people in the absence of vaccination or prior infection. In systematic searches in SeroTracker and PubMed (protocol: osf.io...), we identified 40 eligible national seroprevalence studies covering 38 countries with pre-vaccination seroprevalence data. For 29 countries (24 high-income, 5 others), publicly available age-stratified COVID-19 death data and age-stratified seroprevalence information were available and were included in the primary analysis. The IFRs had a median of 0.034% (interquartile range (IQR) 0.013–0.056%) for the 0–59 years old population, and 0.095% (IQR 0.036–0.119%) for the 0–69 years old. The median IFR was 0.0003% at 0–19 years, 0.002% at 20–29 years, 0.011% at 30–39 years, 0.035% at 40–49 years, 0.123% at 50–59 years, and 0.506% at 60–69 years. IFR increases approximately 4 times every 10 years. Including data from another 9 countries with imputed age distribution of COVID-19 deaths yielded median IFR of 0.025–0.032% for 0–59 years and 0.063–0.082% for 0–69 years. Meta-regression analyses also suggested global IFR of 0.03% and 0.07%, respectively in these age groups. The current analysis suggests a much lower pre-vaccination IFR in non-elderly populations than previously suggested.

You continue to mislead people and promote a dangerous product. You have refused to address your support for children being given a drug that provides them no benefit and causes adverse events in at least 1 in 800.sources abound, but just one

You continue to make statements about adverse events that are not backed by current evidence and continue to deny the dozens of instances of malfeasance by the people you parrot. In fact, you have defended every lie... even when they have been revealed to be intentional.

Everybody should be aware by now that you support giving drugs to people without informed consent and have cheered authoritarian censorship because truth is harmful to the lies you continue to parrot.

Why haven't you addressed the egregious lie you made up about COVID vaccines being safer than Ivermectin? Are we to assume that, having been called out on your lie and having failed to correct yourself, you are simply an unapologetic liar?

This isn't opinion or speculation, it is fact. You have told lies and you have yet to accept responsibility for them. You have not apologized or retracted any of those lies.

Why you continue to post given the overwhelming sentiment that you're not trustworthy is a real mystery to those paying attention.

I do thank you for tirelessly providing opportunities for me to further expose the safe and effective lie, along with making easy work of discrediting those that mysteriously spend hundreds of hours as pharma activists on the Internet for years at a time.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: ScarletDarkness

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Gradcrop

Will they also be investigating the COVID-19 deniers and super-spreaders who refused to take actions against the disease and encouraged others to do likewise?

Denying of what ? A cold that has a 99% survival rate?!

A 99% survival rate means that one person out of every hundred dies.

However, the pooled case fatality ratio in 1st world countries was closer to 10%, which means a survival rate of 90%, prior to the immunizations. That meant ten out of every hundred people who had COVID-19, died.

Case fatality rate of COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

I refused to be 'afraid' of something that wasn't a threat, and I refused to be injected with an expermental 'vaccine' pushed under threats by people who do not care whether I live or die.

Fair enough.

You want to avoid one 'threat' to your life that was at worst one in a million, by risking another that was one in ten.

But you are probably right. The people involved don't even know who you are.

I'm also pretty sure that no one but funeral companies make any coin out of you being dead. I'd recommend that you avoid it, you know, for the friends and family, at least.

You are misleading the audience by assuming that 99% survived the infection and 1% died or by recalling the case fatality rate which is very misleading itself by all metrics. In epidemiology we used the infection fatality rate and that's the most important number to have in mind as it gives us a true estimate or how many are surviving the infection and that's close to 99.85%

In a few words for every 10,000 infections we have approximately 9985 people who survived and 15 who died. Mostly people who are over 70 years old and and/or people with various comorbidities in various risks groups.

The infection fatality rate of SARS-CoV-2 is 0.15% and that's was estimated long time before the 'vaccines' came out and despite the massive propaganda and misinformation and disinformation from the mainstream media that you are still trying to push even though your arguments have bern repeatedly refuted.

The infection fatality rate was calculated by Dr John Ioannidis and colleagues from Stanford University. Dr Ioannidis is one of the top epidemiologists in the world and we'll accepted for his work. It's now acceptable that the infection fatality rate is close to 0.15% and that's was known a few months after the pandemic started thanks to many scientists around the world who did the math.

onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

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.

You should not be engaging in propaganda and disinformation.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Thefineblackharm

originally posted by: Gradcrop

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Gradcrop

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Gradcrop

Will they also be investigating the COVID-19 deniers and super-spreaders who refused to take actions against the disease and encouraged others to do likewise?

You seem to be a vaccine apologist who refuses to admit that these vaccines have caused a range of serious adverse reactions and deaths following vaccine mandates, lies and propaganda, by the mainstream media that pushed the government narratives.

Nobody will be investigating those who refused to get 'vaccinated' and refused to peddle the government narratives and dogma. They are on the right side of history and haven't committed any crimes.

I suppose that the court case will come down to a comparison between the numbers saved by the immunizations, and the numbers harmed by the immunizations.

Already reasonably sound estimates are out that give us a figure for how many lives were saved by the immunizations.

All they have to do is prove that there were more deaths caused by the immunizations and they automatically win the case.

COVID vaccines saved 20 million lives in first year, study says

There is no evidence as to the number saved by immunization. That's an unsubstantiated claim with no merits other than propaganda and lies by those who promoted the vaccines including the pharmaceutical companies. But there is plenty of evidence people were harmed and died due to these products and that's why a number of vaccines have been withdrawn completely from the market and others have been made available only for the over 60s or 70s.

Absolutely correct. Everyone got Covid anyway and people who had the vax still were hospitalized and died. Exactly WHAT evidence that any lives were saved exists except the meanderings of government and medical "officials."?

Hospitalization ratios and death ratios dropped markedly among those who were inoculated, despite the number of infections rising astronomically.

Effectiveness of Covid-19 Vaccines over a 9-Month Period in North Carolina

Long-term effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines against infections, hospitalisations, and mortality in adults: findings from a rapid living systematic evidence synthesis and meta-analysis up to December, 2022

What safety and effectiveness?!
You must be joking!

Astrazeneca and J & J have been abandoned by pretty much all countries that have used them due to the scandalous high number of severe adverse reactions and deaths they have caused. In addition the mRNA products have caused the most adverse reactions from all other vaccines put together and at the moment mostly restricted to those over the age of 65-70 and those who are clinically vulnerable. No mention the various lawsuits because people have been seriously injured or died...

The fact that 2 of the vaccines are no longer in circulation and the rest restricted for those over the age of 65-70 shows precisely how this is far from a success story.

One of the greatest if not the greatest medical blunder in history.

a reply to: chr0naut

It's amusing you still trying to defend one of the most failed medical products in history, the Covid vaccines. But sadly for those who have invested emotionally in them or trusted the 'science' for political and ideological reasons, the covid vaccines have been taken out of circulation or restricted only for the clinically vulnerable and the very old.

Probably the greatest medical blunder in history. It's not wise for you to defend such products when the picture is clear or try to offer some vaccine apologies here or in other threads. The vaccine campaign has failed if you haven't realised it.

originally posted by: ksihkahe
a reply to: chr0naut

You just keep intentionally misleading people. I am still gobsmacked by the gall you have to keep posting this bs, after being exposed lying multiple times, all while ignoring the dead and disabled children that are getting no benefit from the junk vaccines that you pushed.

Please point to exact statistics for all these alleged dead and disabled children attributable to the immunizations, because claiming such stuff without any basis in fact, would be lies and intentionally misleading people.

All of that study data was from 2020.

But after then, the immunizations became generally available. Immunized people are far less likely to die from COVID-19.

Using data gathered after immunization had started in significant numbers would skew the statistics and mask the true CFR for the disease itself. So choosing a study from after there were sufficient numbers of cases, but before there were therapeutics and immunizations available, is sensible.

From the part that you conveniently ignored, even though it's still a gross misrepresentation of the actual impacts of COVID. From your outdated study

The pooled CFR of COVID-19 in general population was 1.0% (95% CI: 1.0-3.0)

On the contrary, the study clearly said:

"The overall pooled CFR of COVID 19 was 10.0% (95% CI: 8.0-11.0); P < 0.001; I2 = 99.7). The pooled CFR of COVID-19 in general population was 1.0% (95% CI: 1.0-3.0); P < 0.001; I2 = 94.3), while in hospitalized patients was 13.0% (95% CI: 9.0-17.0); P < 0.001, I2 = 95.6). The pooled CFR in patients admitted in intensive care unit (ICU) was 37.0% (95% CI: 24.0-51.0); P < 0.001, I2 = 97.8) and in patients older than 50 years was 19.0% (95% CI: 13.0-24.0); P < 0.001; I2 = 99.8).

So, the paper was actually saying that overall pooled CFR of 10% is based upon several groups: the un-hospitalized, the hospitalized, those in intensive care, and those older than 50.

You need to read more carefully.

Of course few of those who had not been hospitalized, died. Most people who were that sick, went, or were taken, to hospital for it.

The last time I checked serotesting well over 80% of the population showed prior COVID infection.

80% of 330 million people is 264 million people. Remember that, we'll refer to that number later.

Most of the people that died from COVID, not just with a COVID postive junk PCR, were statistically past their life expectancy.

Nobody believes anything you say, including you.

No, I don't believe what you are saying.

You have an near zero percent accuracy on every bit of nonsense you promoted.

Here's your 10% CFR in real numbers.

source

But wait, isn't that graph based upon total data from before and after the immunizations? So it isn't showing what you allude to.

Just a bit further down the page you linked to, is a graph of active cases over time. See that massive spike near 01 February 2022. What stopped the stratoscopic rise in numbers of active cases and turned the trend around in that really short time-frame? (Hint, the first COVID-19 immunization was given approval on 11 December 2020 and uptake ramped up over the year).

Graph - Share of people who received at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccine - Our World in Data

We already know that 95% of COVID mortality in the US was people with multiple serious comorbidities and, predominantly, age above 70. We also know that serotesting has shown, as of around a year ago, that over 80% of the population has already been exposed to COVID. It is endemic and only a tiny percentage of the population hasn't been exposed. It's endemic and the majority of the ongoing public health effects are occuring in the vaccinated populations that destroyed their immune system with junk science experiments.

Case fatality rate is just how you are now misleading people, with numbers you don't understand and hope others won't either, for like the hundredth time on this site.

264 million people (from that serotesting estimate) is a bit different than the 110 million in the graph you just posted?

That is the problem with confusing the IFR with the CFR.

The IFR is based upon several successive estimates. Rubbery figures based on more rubbery figures like abundances of chemical traces in a very small and unrepresentative variable subset of population. Or of those trace chemical abundances in guessed-at volumes of wastewater, etc.

The CFR is based upon hard numbers of verified cases and the known deaths from the end stages of those cases. Very hard and objective data!

The COVID-19 immunizations do indeed appear to be safer than Ivermectin in the doses alleged to be required to have any sort of effect on the virus.

Ivermectin (Oral Route) - Mayo Clinic

Toxic Effects from Ivermectin Use Associated with Prevention and Treatment of Covid-19

Fact check: 590% jump in poison control calls about ivermectin seen in Texas

CDC Health Advisory - Rapid Increase in Ivermectin Prescriptions and Reports of Severe Illness Associated with Use of Products Containing Ivermectin to
Prevent or Treat COVID-19

originally posted by: CosmicVibe

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Thefineblackharm

originally posted by: Gradcrop

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Gradcrop

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Gradcrop

Will they also be investigating the COVID-19 deniers and super-spreaders who refused to take actions against the disease and encouraged others to do likewise?

You seem to be a vaccine apologist who refuses to admit that these vaccines have caused a range of serious adverse reactions and deaths following vaccine mandates, lies and propaganda, by the mainstream media that pushed the government narratives.

Nobody will be investigating those who refused to get 'vaccinated' and refused to peddle the government narratives and dogma. They are on the right side of history and haven't committed any crimes.

I suppose that the court case will come down to a comparison between the numbers saved by the immunizations, and the numbers harmed by the immunizations.

Already reasonably sound estimates are out that give us a figure for how many lives were saved by the immunizations.

All they have to do is prove that there were more deaths caused by the immunizations and they automatically win the case.

COVID vaccines saved 20 million lives in first year, study says

There is no evidence as to the number saved by immunization. That's an unsubstantiated claim with no merits other than propaganda and lies by those who promoted the vaccines including the pharmaceutical companies. But there is plenty of evidence people were harmed and died due to these products and that's why a number of vaccines have been withdrawn completely from the market and others have been made available only for the over 60s or 70s.

Absolutely correct. Everyone got Covid anyway and people who had the vax still were hospitalized and died. Exactly WHAT evidence that any lives were saved exists except the meanderings of government and medical "officials."?

Hospitalization ratios and death ratios dropped markedly among those who were inoculated, despite the number of infections rising astronomically.

Effectiveness of Covid-19 Vaccines over a 9-Month Period in North Carolina

Long-term effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines against infections, hospitalisations, and mortality in adults: findings from a rapid living systematic evidence synthesis and meta-analysis up to December, 2022

What safety and effectiveness?!
You must be joking!

Astrazeneca and J & J have been abandoned by pretty much all countries that have used them due to the scandalous high number of severe adverse reactions and deaths they have caused. In addition the mRNA products have caused the most adverse reactions from all other vaccines put together and at the moment mostly restricted to those over the age of 65-70 and those who are clinically vulnerable. No mention the various lawsuits because people have been seriously injured or died...

The fact that 2 of the vaccines are no longer in circulation and the rest restricted for those over the age of 65-70 shows precisely how this is far from a success story.

One of the greatest if not the greatest medical blunder in history.

Those vaccines were not removed from circulation because they had scandalous high number of severe adverse reactions. It was just that there were more effective options, with a better clinical safety record, available.

When a country commits large sums of money into a vaccination campaign, they will try and get the best deal that they can, on behalf of their population, otherwise why would they give away all that money?

originally posted by: CosmicVibe
a reply to: chr0naut

It's amusing you still trying to defend one of the most failed medical products in history, the Covid vaccines. But sadly for those who have invested emotionally in them or trusted the 'science' for political and ideological reasons, the covid vaccines have been taken out of circulation or restricted only for the clinically vulnerable and the very old.

Probably the greatest medical blunder in history. It's not wise for you to defend such products when the picture is clear or try to offer some vaccine apologies here or in other threads. The vaccine campaign has failed if you haven't realised it.

I think that with so many doses administered, and with so many types and brands still approved, in use, and recommended, that the COVID-19 immunizations are far from failed products.

I also think that the risks are being enormously overstated by anti-vaxxers, who keep proclaiming their opinions loudly on the 'net - far more loudly than the authoritative and credentialled proponents promote anything.

You know, there was a time when people believed things that were in print, and then people got savvy and skeptical, and then there was radio, and they all believed everything there until they got jaded, then there was TV, but no-one believes the commercials there anymore, and now there is the Internet and social media. I recon that people are just about now starting to become jaded and skeptical about that, too.

But some are a bit slow. It's to be expected.

a reply to: chr0naut

You said

The IFR is based upon several successive estimates. Rubbery figures based on more rubbery figures like abundances of chemical traces in a very small and unrepresentative variable subset of population. Or of those trace chemical abundances in guessed-at volumes of wastewater, etc.

The IFR is the only number we look in epidemiology contrary to what you have said above trying to provide the CFR as the number where epidemiologists concentrate as it's misleading. We are interested in the number of people infected and and not just those who have been tested or recorded to have been infected. You clearly show lack of understanding of the most basics.

As discussed above the IFR stands for the infection fatality rate and it's the ratio of the total number of people died (recorded) over the total number infected (estimated). Given that these estimations are not straight forward but thankfully we have great mathematicians and epidemiologists around the world like Dr John Ioannidis from Stanford who has calculated the IFR to be around 0.15%. That's the global average IFR and that was long before any vaccines were out.

Here it is again and Dr Ioannidis is one of the the most cited epidemiologist in his field if not the most cited.

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.

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

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: CosmicVibe

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Thefineblackharm

originally posted by: Gradcrop

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Gradcrop

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Gradcrop

Will they also be investigating the COVID-19 deniers and super-spreaders who refused to take actions against the disease and encouraged others to do likewise?

You seem to be a vaccine apologist who refuses to admit that these vaccines have caused a range of serious adverse reactions and deaths following vaccine mandates, lies and propaganda, by the mainstream media that pushed the government narratives.

Nobody will be investigating those who refused to get 'vaccinated' and refused to peddle the government narratives and dogma. They are on the right side of history and haven't committed any crimes.

I suppose that the court case will come down to a comparison between the numbers saved by the immunizations, and the numbers harmed by the immunizations.

Already reasonably sound estimates are out that give us a figure for how many lives were saved by the immunizations.

All they have to do is prove that there were more deaths caused by the immunizations and they automatically win the case.

COVID vaccines saved 20 million lives in first year, study says

There is no evidence as to the number saved by immunization. That's an unsubstantiated claim with no merits other than propaganda and lies by those who promoted the vaccines including the pharmaceutical companies. But there is plenty of evidence people were harmed and died due to these products and that's why a number of vaccines have been withdrawn completely from the market and others have been made available only for the over 60s or 70s.

Absolutely correct. Everyone got Covid anyway and people who had the vax still were hospitalized and died. Exactly WHAT evidence that any lives were saved exists except the meanderings of government and medical "officials."?

Hospitalization ratios and death ratios dropped markedly among those who were inoculated, despite the number of infections rising astronomically.

Effectiveness of Covid-19 Vaccines over a 9-Month Period in North Carolina

Long-term effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines against infections, hospitalisations, and mortality in adults: findings from a rapid living systematic evidence synthesis and meta-analysis up to December, 2022

What safety and effectiveness?!
You must be joking!

Astrazeneca and J & J have been abandoned by pretty much all countries that have used them due to the scandalous high number of severe adverse reactions and deaths they have caused. In addition the mRNA products have caused the most adverse reactions from all other vaccines put together and at the moment mostly restricted to those over the age of 65-70 and those who are clinically vulnerable. No mention the various lawsuits because people have been seriously injured or died...

The fact that 2 of the vaccines are no longer in circulation and the rest restricted for those over the age of 65-70 shows precisely how this is far from a success story.

One of the greatest if not the greatest medical blunder in history.

Those vaccines were not removed from circulation because they had scandalous high number of severe adverse reactions. It was just that there were more effective options, with a better clinical safety record, available.

When a country commits large sums of money into a vaccination campaign, they will try and get the best deal that they can, on behalf of their population, otherwise why would they give away all that money?

These vaccines have been driven out of circulation because of they have caused severe adverse reactions and deaths. What you are saying is irrelevant by the way. The fact that AstraZeneca and J&J are no longer around proves exactly the magnitude of the scandal. Even the mRNA products have been restricted to those over the age of 65 and above.

This is one of the greatest medical scandals in history of not the greatest medical scandal.

a reply to: Virion2

The fact that AstraZeneca and J&J are no longer around proves exactly the magnitude of the scandal.

No it shows that other vaccines were better.

Even the mRNA products have been restricted to those over the age of 65 and above.

The situation now is very different to 2020/2021. It would be surprising if the advise wasn't different.

In watching this issue roll out since it started, safe and effective treatment like HCQ and Ivermectin where suppressed while a dangerous and new technology pushed on the population. Bill Gates has achieved his aim of a 10-15% increase in in the death rate with the way the all cause mortality rates have raised since the vaccinations started.

With how most politicians are silent on this issue when happy for past lockdowns and mandates if it could save on life is hypocritical. The lack of candor expressed on the facts like Barry Young has demonstrated is a troubling situation eroding trust in public institutions and those behind the creating, managing and directing the covid situation.

The attitude of the Italian Health Minister to the vaccinations is common. People that looked into it could see a lot of troubles with it, many that did not look fell in the media trap. So despite being away of the risks, he pushed on with it. As his fears where realized of doing more harm than good, he helped cover up the facts. This is a situation that will be found in all the nations that pushed hard with the vaccination program.

When deeper into some of it, the department of defense is also involved. Three Prime Ministers that did not accept the vaccination program died. The next replacements where on board. How much pressure what the Italian Health Minister under to go ahead despite his concerns? Will the national security implications require a court martial to sort out, if they can?

originally posted by: Virion2
a reply to: chr0naut

The IFR is the only number we look in epidemiology contrary to what you have said above trying to provide the CFR as the number where epidemiologists concentrate as it's misleading. We are interested in the number of people infected and and not just those who have been tested or recorded to have been infected. You clearly show lack of understanding of the most basics.

As discussed above the IFR stands for the infection fatality rate and it's the ratio of the total number of people died (recorded) over the total number infected (estimated). Given that these estimations are not straight forward but thankfully we have great mathematicians and epidemiologists around the world like Dr John Ioannidis from Stanford who has calculated the IFR to be around 0.15%. That's the global average IFR and that was long before any vaccines were out.

Here it is again and Dr Ioannidis is one of the the most cited epidemiologist in his field if not the most cited.

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.

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

Since the vast majority of people who died of COVID-19, did so in hospital, where they had their diagnosis confirmed prior to their death (and so their numbers are more accurately reflected in the CFR), there is a tight link between those hospitalized with COVID-19 and those that died of COVID-19.

Wouldn't a ratio that has little 'fudge factors' or guess work involved, be a better indicator, and especially in situations where the testing rate is high? In those high-test situations, differences between CFR and IFR cast doubt on the IFR estimate and reinforce the CFR as an accurate and useful measure.

The only real issue with CFR is that it takes time for infected people to die of diseases. So early CFR numbers are lower, and rise towards their peak values over time. In this instance, for early epidemiological calculations and estimates about best responses to spreading infections, the IFR gives a good early benchmark, but it looses accuracy over time inversely, as CFR accuracy increases.

With asymptomatic and unreported infections, we really don't know how many were infected. We can estimate it statistically, but there are just too many factors at play to believe that those derived numbers are accurate for the entire population.

But the total number of the infected is the very basis of IFR. As the denominator in the ratio, small inaccuracies in the number of those infected lead to vastly different results - it's just simple mathematics.

Infection fatality ratio and case fatality ratio of COVID-19

Analysis of the time course of COVID-19 cases and deaths from countries with extensive testing allows accurate early estimates of the age specific symptomatic CFR values

Dr Ioannidis claimed, from his 2020 study of Santa Clara County Seroprevalence, that there would only be 10,000 deaths from COVID-19 in the USA. He has since then changed his opinion, but that fact seems to have eluded those who continue to quote his discredited mistakes (There have actually been close to 1.2 million deaths in the USA from COVID-19 to date).

What the heck happened to John Ioannidis?

“This Would Translate to About 10,000 Deaths” Reflections From the Start of the Pandemic

I am not an epidemiologist, but I am somewhat surprised that others close to the subject matter don't seem to know what is happening in the field?

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Virion2
a reply to: chr0naut

The IFR is the only number we look in epidemiology contrary to what you have said above trying to provide the CFR as the number where epidemiologists concentrate as it's misleading. We are interested in the number of people infected and and not just those who have been tested or recorded to have been infected. You clearly show lack of understanding of the most basics.

As discussed above the IFR stands for the infection fatality rate and it's the ratio of the total number of people died (recorded) over the total number infected (estimated). Given that these estimations are not straight forward but thankfully we have great mathematicians and epidemiologists around the world like Dr John Ioannidis from Stanford who has calculated the IFR to be around 0.15%. That's the global average IFR and that was long before any vaccines were out.

Here it is again and Dr Ioannidis is one of the the most cited epidemiologist in his field if not the most cited.

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.

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

Since the vast majority of people who died of COVID-19, did so in hospital, where they had their diagnosis confirmed prior to their death (and so their numbers are more accurately reflected in the CFR), there is a tight link between those hospitalized with COVID-19 and those that died of COVID-19.

Wouldn't a ratio that has little 'fudge factors' or guess work involved, be a better indicator, and especially in situations where the testing rate is high? In those high-test situations, differences between CFR and IFR cast doubt on the IFR estimate and reinforce the CFR as an accurate and useful measure.

The only real issue with CFR is that it takes time for infected people to die of diseases. So early CFR numbers are lower, and rise towards their peak values over time. In this instance, for early epidemiological calculations and estimates about best responses to spreading infections, the IFR gives a good early benchmark, but it looses accuracy over time inversely, as CFR accuracy increases.

With asymptomatic and unreported infections, we really don't know how many were infected. We can estimate it statistically, but there are just too many factors at play to believe that those derived numbers are accurate for the entire population.

But the total number of the infected is the very basis of IFR. As the denominator in the ratio, small inaccuracies in the number of those infected lead to vastly different results - it's just simple mathematics.

Infection fatality ratio and case fatality ratio of COVID-19

Analysis of the time course of COVID-19 cases and deaths from countries with extensive testing allows accurate early estimates of the age specific symptomatic CFR values

Dr Ioannidis claimed, from his 2020 study of Santa Clara County Seroprevalence, that there would only be 10,000 deaths from COVID-19 in the USA. He has since then changed his opinion, but that fact seems to have eluded those who continue to quote his discredited mistakes (There have actually been close to 1.2 million deaths in the USA from COVID-19 to date).

What the heck happened to John Ioannidis?

“This Would Translate to About 10,000 Deaths” Reflections From the Start of the Pandemic

I am not an epidemiologist, but I am somewhat surprised that others close to the subject matter don't seem to know what is happening in the field?

You are not an epidemiologist as you said and you need to be able to reflect on why a large part of research is concentrated and focused on how to find the total number of people infected with SARS-CoV-2. It's a much more difficult task but that's the figure we want to know in epidemiology. How many people have been infected (approximately) and how many people have died (we know the number).
This is the number we want to know, the IFR, and thankfully statistical analysis and mathematical models provide us with very good tools to give very good estimations. All calculations have placed the IFR at around 0.15% or a little higher up to 0.24%.

And no the CFR is not a better indicator by all metrics. It's a misleading number and it's not used to describe the infection/fatality rates of a given virus simply because it misses plenty of valuable information such as how many people are not getting tested and confirmed to have been infected (clearly there are many) and those who have minor symptoms or are asymptomatic and they don't even know they have been infected.

www.worldometers.info...

Here it says there are approximately 701 million cases with around 7 million deaths.

These are the recorded and confirmed cases end not the actual number of people who have been infected. After more than 3 years living with SARS-CoV-2 (different variants) with the latest to be very infectious and many people infected 2 or 3 times with different variants we know for sure that almost the entire planet has been infected by now.

I will have to say again that your claim CFR is an accurate measure of fatality rates is simply not true. CFR is very misleading and especially when you use some studies to claim it's about 10%. The Spanish Flue had an IFR (infection fatality rate) of around 10% and these things maybe confused when someone is not trained to distinguish between these two. There is no comparison between the Spanish Flu and Covid-19; the disease known as Covid19 has a very low infection fatality rate and this was known from the beginning of this story only a few months into the pandemic.

We know very well that by the end of 2020/ beginning of 2021 around 1.5 - 2 billion people have been infected and this has been recorded on various research peer reviewed papers and in the medical literature.

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.

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

a reply to: chr0naut

Dr Ioannidis claimed, from his 2020 study of Santa Clara County Seroprevalence, that there would only be 10,000 deaths from COVID-19 in the USA. He has since then changed his opinion, but that fact seems to have eluded those who continue to quote his discredited mistakes (There have actually been close to 1.2 million deaths in the USA from COVID-19 to date)

Simply not true.

Dr Ioannidis not only hasn't been discredited as you falsely claimed but he is one of the most cited scientists (if not the most cited scientist) in the world and his work has been recognised and accepted by all major scientific journals and has become a reference frame for science in the field of coronavirus research and especially the numbers around IFR and IFR by age group.

This is the most cited paper in the world which is also published in the Bulletin of the World Health Organization and has become one the seminal papers

www.medrxiv.org...

Conclusions

The infection fatality rate of COVID-19 can vary substantially across different locations and this may reflect differences in population age structure and case-mix of infected and deceased patients as well as multiple other factors. Estimates of infection fatality rates inferred from seroprevalence studies tend to be much lower than original speculations made in the early days of the pandemic.

The median IFR from a range of 51 locations was found to be 0.24%. Main point of the paper and IFR varies from location to location and from country to country.

Dr Ioannidis is the one of the top if not the top epidemiologist and the attempts to 'discredit' him or put doubt on his abilities and his scientific understanding of the subject matter he is an expert in, are just ludicrous. Some scientists have initially disagreed with his estimations as well as the estimations of his colleagues and there is nothing wrong with disagreements in science and with criticising the work presented.

I will point out for once more that people online who don't understand epidemiology and mathematics/statistics should not jump to erroneous conclusions based on gossip and misinterpretations of criticisms from other scientists.

a reply to: chr0naut

Dr Ioannidis claimed, from his 2020 study of Santa Clara County Seroprevalence, that there would only be 10,000 deaths from COVID-19 in the USA. He has since then changed his opinion, but that fact seems to have eluded those who continue to quote his discredited mistakes (There have actually been close to 1.2 million deaths in the USA from COVID-19 to date).

Addressing the point you made. As I said above it's simply not true.

One of your links said what the heck happened to Dr Ioannidis?

Well, nothing much other than been recognised as a leading authority (he was already ond of the top epidemiologist in the world) in the field of coronavirus research and one of the most cited scientists in the world (if not the most cited)

Did Dr Ioannidis say that there would be only 10,000 deaths in the US from coronavirus?

I think before you make these claims or read through opinion pieces online you need to read what it was said and not jump to conclusions that are simply not true. Your link is from another scientist criticising the work of Dr Ioannidis and that's fine as this is the way it should be.

www.scientificamerican.com...

In March, when John Ioannidis published an opinion essay in STAT, the reaction was swift and brutal. Ioannidis estimated that deaths in the U.S. from COVID-19 could potentially be as low as 10,000—or they could approach levels not seen since the flu pandemic of 1918. Anything was possible, he wrote, and he pleaded for better science in order to make informed decisions

Dr Ioannidis never claimed that the total number of COVID deaths will be 10,000. But applied an observed 0.3% CFR to 1% of the population of the US or in a few words he estimated the number of deaths per 3.3 million infections to be 10,000. Very different to what was propagated online. You also falsely claim he has changed his opinion. There is nothing wrong with changing your opinion based on the evidence presented but his opinion was never that only 10,000 people will die from COVID in the US. You are just misinterpreting and misrepresenting what he said big time! Dr Ioannidis said anything was possible and we needed more information to come up with better science and conclusions.


From the link above

But that was not Ioannidis’ position. In the flood of public shaming, his central focus was ignored: estimates of COVID-19 mortality were all over the map, and without testing a “random sample of a population” and repeat testing “at regular time intervals to estimate the incidence of new infections,” the real answers were unknown. Data, not guesswork, he suggested, should guide public health decisions about interventions such as quarantine, travel bans, work and school closures, travel bans and physical distancing, which had their own risks of harm.

Make sure you read the articles carefully and you don't misinterpret or misrepresent what others say or not say and especially figures like Dr Ioannidis who are leading authorities and one the most cited scientists (if not the most cited) scientist in coronavirus research.

We know the number of people infected was much higher than reported since the end of 2020 beginning 2021 again due to Dr Ioannidis' work and the over 85 peer reviewed papers he has referenced in his very influential paper.

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.

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

It's obvious there have been many attempts to smear scientists who didn't go along with the doomsday scenarios that were originally presented by the mainstream media propagating the official narratives. But these attempts failed and we knew since the first few months into the pandemic that this isn't the Spanish Flu we are dealing with. Several prominent scientists including Dr Ioannidis proved with their work that the IFR of Covid-19 is very low. Dr Ioannidis was proven right and the dinosaurs of the media and the paid 'scientists' were proven wrong of course.

originally posted by: MRX212
a reply to: chr0naut

Dr Ioannidis claimed, from his 2020 study of Santa Clara County Seroprevalence, that there would only be 10,000 deaths from COVID-19 in the USA. He has since then changed his opinion, but that fact seems to have eluded those who continue to quote his discredited mistakes (There have actually been close to 1.2 million deaths in the USA from COVID-19 to date).

Addressing the point you made. As I said above it's simply not true.

One of your links said what the heck happened to Dr Ioannidis?

Well, nothing much other than been recognised as a leading authority (he was already ond of the top epidemiologist in the world) in the field of coronavirus research and one of the most cited scientists in the world (if not the most cited)

Did Dr Ioannidis say that there would be only 10,000 deaths in the US from coronavirus?

I think before you make these claims or read through opinion pieces online you need to read what it was said and not jump to conclusions that are simply not true. Your link is from another scientist criticising the work of Dr Ioannidis and that's fine as this is the way it should be.

www.scientificamerican.com...

In March, when John Ioannidis published an opinion essay in STAT, the reaction was swift and brutal. Ioannidis estimated that deaths in the U.S. from COVID-19 could potentially be as low as 10,000—or they could approach levels not seen since the flu pandemic of 1918. Anything was possible, he wrote, and he pleaded for better science in order to make informed decisions

Dr Ioannidis never claimed that the total number of COVID deaths will be 10,000. But applied an observed 0.3% CFR to 1% of the population of the US or in a few words he estimated the number of deaths per 3.3 million infections to be 10,000. Very different to what was propagated online. You also falsely claim he has changed his opinion. There is nothing wrong with changing your opinion based on the evidence presented but his opinion was never that only 10,000 people will die from COVID in the US. You are just misinterpreting and misrepresenting what he said big time! Dr Ioannidis said anything was possible and we needed more information to come up with better science and conclusions.


From the link above

But that was not Ioannidis’ position. In the flood of public shaming, his central focus was ignored: estimates of COVID-19 mortality were all over the map, and without testing a “random sample of a population” and repeat testing “at regular time intervals to estimate the incidence of new infections,” the real answers were unknown. Data, not guesswork, he suggested, should guide public health decisions about interventions such as quarantine, travel bans, work and school closures, travel bans and physical distancing, which had their own risks of harm.

Make sure you read the articles carefully and you don't misinterpret or misrepresent what others say or not say and especially figures like Dr Ioannidis who are leading authorities and one the most cited scientists (if not the most cited) scientist in coronavirus research.

We know the number of people infected was much higher than reported since the end of 2020 beginning 2021 again due to Dr Ioannidis' work and the over 85 peer reviewed papers he has referenced in his very influential paper.

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.

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

It's obvious there have been many attempts to smear scientists who didn't go along with the doomsday scenarios that were originally presented by the mainstream media propagating the official narratives. But these attempts failed and we knew since the first few months into the pandemic that this isn't the Spanish Flu we are dealing with. Several prominent scientists including Dr Ioannidis proved with their work that the IFR of Covid-19 is very low. Dr Ioannidis was proven right and the dinosaurs of the media and the paid 'scientists' were proven wrong of course.

From your new scientist link.

Editor’s note: This article was originally published on November 30, 2020 with a number of errors and misleading claims. First, it should have been labeled “Opinion,” but was not. Second, the authors’ bylines were omitted. Third, the authors failed to note that they have collaborated in the past with both John Ioannidis and Vinay Prasad, who are discussed in this essay, and also in this accompanying story. This, we now understand, was also the case with a similar opinion piece by the same authors in Undark magazine in June. Fourth, the authors did not disclose that there were other problematic issues raised about the design of a study co-authored by John Ioannidis, most notably how the study authors recruited study participants and how independent faculty at Stanford said that they were unable to verify the accuracy of their test.

Other specific errors or omissions are noted with asterisks in the text below. Scientific American sincerely regrets all of these errors.

originally posted by: BedevereTheWise

originally posted by: MRX212
a reply to: chr0naut

Dr Ioannidis claimed, from his 2020 study of Santa Clara County Seroprevalence, that there would only be 10,000 deaths from COVID-19 in the USA. He has since then changed his opinion, but that fact seems to have eluded those who continue to quote his discredited mistakes (There have actually been close to 1.2 million deaths in the USA from COVID-19 to date).

Addressing the point you made. As I said above it's simply not true.

One of your links said what the heck happened to Dr Ioannidis?

Well, nothing much other than been recognised as a leading authority (he was already ond of the top epidemiologist in the world) in the field of coronavirus research and one of the most cited scientists in the world (if not the most cited)

Did Dr Ioannidis say that there would be only 10,000 deaths in the US from coronavirus?

I think before you make these claims or read through opinion pieces online you need to read what it was said and not jump to conclusions that are simply not true. Your link is from another scientist criticising the work of Dr Ioannidis and that's fine as this is the way it should be.

www.scientificamerican.com...

In March, when John Ioannidis published an opinion essay in STAT, the reaction was swift and brutal. Ioannidis estimated that deaths in the U.S. from COVID-19 could potentially be as low as 10,000—or they could approach levels not seen since the flu pandemic of 1918. Anything was possible, he wrote, and he pleaded for better science in order to make informed decisions

Dr Ioannidis never claimed that the total number of COVID deaths will be 10,000. But applied an observed 0.3% CFR to 1% of the population of the US or in a few words he estimated the number of deaths per 3.3 million infections to be 10,000. Very different to what was propagated online. You also falsely claim he has changed his opinion. There is nothing wrong with changing your opinion based on the evidence presented but his opinion was never that only 10,000 people will die from COVID in the US. You are just misinterpreting and misrepresenting what he said big time! Dr Ioannidis said anything was possible and we needed more information to come up with better science and conclusions.


From the link above

But that was not Ioannidis’ position. In the flood of public shaming, his central focus was ignored: estimates of COVID-19 mortality were all over the map, and without testing a “random sample of a population” and repeat testing “at regular time intervals to estimate the incidence of new infections,” the real answers were unknown. Data, not guesswork, he suggested, should guide public health decisions about interventions such as quarantine, travel bans, work and school closures, travel bans and physical distancing, which had their own risks of harm.

Make sure you read the articles carefully and you don't misinterpret or misrepresent what others say or not say and especially figures like Dr Ioannidis who are leading authorities and one the most cited scientists (if not the most cited) scientist in coronavirus research.

We know the number of people infected was much higher than reported since the end of 2020 beginning 2021 again due to Dr Ioannidis' work and the over 85 peer reviewed papers he has referenced in his very influential paper.

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.

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

It's obvious there have been many attempts to smear scientists who didn't go along with the doomsday scenarios that were originally presented by the mainstream media propagating the official narratives. But these attempts failed and we knew since the first few months into the pandemic that this isn't the Spanish Flu we are dealing with. Several prominent scientists including Dr Ioannidis proved with their work that the IFR of Covid-19 is very low. Dr Ioannidis was proven right and the dinosaurs of the media and the paid 'scientists' were proven wrong of course.

From your new scientist link.

Editor’s note: This article was originally published on November 30, 2020 with a number of errors and misleading claims. First, it should have been labeled “Opinion,” but was not. Second, the authors’ bylines were omitted. Third, the authors failed to note that they have collaborated in the past with both John Ioannidis and Vinay Prasad, who are discussed in this essay, and also in this accompanying story. This, we now understand, was also the case with a similar opinion piece by the same authors in Undark magazine in June. Fourth, the authors did not disclose that there were other problematic issues raised about the design of a study co-authored by John Ioannidis, most notably how the study authors recruited study participants and how independent faculty at Stanford said that they were unable to verify the accuracy of their test.

Other specific errors or omissions are noted with asterisks in the text below. Scientific American sincerely regrets all of these errors.

Yes I noted but it doesn't change the substance of the comments made by the authors and the fact that the claims against Dr Ioannidis were misleading in the first place based on misinterpretations and misrepresentations of other opinion pieces made by other scientists who wanted to criticise the work of Dr Ioannidis.

The opinion of the editor is really irrelevant here and misleading itself as it doesn't deal with the false claims made against Dr Ioannidis but with the scientists who defended his position and some minor mistakes in their criticisms.

The editor says this article it's an 'opinion' but all articles online apart from the scientific peer reviewed papers and preprints are opinions by scientists and not by pedestrians. That's obvious and not an issue as he tries to make.

Then he goes by saying that the author (Ioannidis) bylines have been omitted? And so what? The authors have already linked the entire article by Dr Ioannidis in their online review.

Then the editor said they failed to say there have been colleagues of Dr Ioannidis. And so what? Anyone can see this online and it doesn't change the fact that their criticisms of thr article below are valid and based on realities and not friendships

This is the article criticising Dr Ioannidis

sciencebasedmedicine.org...

An opinion piece based on the criticisms by another epidemiologist.

The claim Dr Ioannidis said there were only be 10,000 deaths in the US isn't true and a false misrepresentation (probably deliberate) of what he said. All you need to do is to read his article here

www.statnews.com...

a reply to: BedevereTheWise

All the attempts to smear Dr Ioannidis have failed. He is one of the most cited if not the most cited scientist in epidemiology and coronavirus research and one of the leading figures who successfully estimated the IFR of Covid-19 when at the same time gloom and doom scenarios were propagated by the mainstream media and their paid associates.

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


Reconciling estimates of global spread and infection fatality rates of COVID-19: An overview of systematic evaluations
John P A Ioannidis. Eur J Clin Invest. 2021 May.

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.

Dr Ioannidis is one of the most distinguished scientists who looked at data just as every scientist has to do. The IFR as we all knew was not what was propagated in the media but of the order of 0.15% to 0.2% at a global average rate.


The following is the most cited paper around and one of the most influential and seminal papers in the course of the pandemic that has also been featuring even in the Bulleting of the World Health Organization

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

Infection fatality rate of COVID-19 inferred from seroprevalence data
John P A Ioannidis. Bull World Health Organ. 2021.

As time passed Dr Ioannidis and several other epidemiologists around the world have been proven right despite the attempts made to 'discredit' them initially. And I ask the question, is it ever possible for online simpletons to 'discredit' or 'criticise' the work of top scientists without any evidence or data?

a reply to: BedevereTheWise
a reply to: MRX212

I don't know Dr Ioannidis, this is the first I have heard of him and his work. I expect he is a part of this case going on in Italy to have such banter over it.

I am not going to condemn anyone for making a prediction as covid kicked off. Lots of ideas going around at the time. As things have turned out, not as bad as some, a lot worst than others. As time moved on things have become clearer for many of us.

Is Italy having a similar situation as New Zealand and no one is allowed to see all the facts and drain this swamp? The state data should be clear on how many died and not rest on the testimony of one doctor. I understand there is a lot of data there so providing some expert interpretation can help in knowing where to look.

When facts become personal, someone is losing the debate.

originally posted by: kwaka
a reply to: BedevereTheWise
a reply to: MRX212

I don't know Dr Ioannidis, this is the first I have heard of him and his work. I expect he is a part of this case going on in Italy to have such banter over it.

I am not going to condemn anyone for making a prediction as covid kicked off. Lots of ideas going around at the time. As things have turned out, not as bad as some, a lot worst than others. As time moved on things have become clearer for many of us.

Is Italy having a similar situation as New Zealand and no one is allowed to see all the facts and drain this swamp? The state data should be clear on how many died and not rest on the testimony of one doctor. I understand there is a lot of data there so providing some expert interpretation can help in knowing where to look.

When facts become personal, someone is losing the debate.

Nothing more than attempts to smear one of the most distinguished if not the most distinguished scientist who successfully estimated the infection fatality rate (IFR) of Covid-19 and didn't go along with the doom and gloom scenarios from the mainstream. See posts above. He is the one of the most cited scientists in the world who argued that lockdowns are catastrophic and that the response to the pandemic was terrible. He was right about what he said. One of the posters I linked above is the most cited paper in coronavirus research that I know of and even features in the Bulletin of the World Health Organization that Dr Ioannidis criticised heavily for providing unrealistic predictions of fatality rates initially in the pandemic.