Ross Clark
The Imperial College modelling, which has been so influential on the government, assumed an infection fatality rate (IFR) of 0.9 per cent. This was used to compute the infamous prediction that 250,000 Britons would die unless the government abandoned its mitigation strategy and adopted instead a policy of suppressing the virus through lockdown. Imperial later revised its estimate of the IFR down to 0.66 per cent – although the 16 March paper which predicted 250,000 deaths was not updated.
 |
| Epidemiology versus reality: Uppsala University model —predictions of Covid deaths in Sweden under various management scenarios including doing nothing (Lowermost line). Source |
They range between 0.02 per cent and 0.5 per cent – although Ioannidis has corrected those raw figures to take account of demographic balance and come up with estimates between 0.02 per cent and 0.4 per cent. The lowest estimates came from Kobe, Japan, found to have an IFR of 0.02 per cent and Oise in northern France, with an IFR of 0.04 per cent. The highest were in Geneva (a raw figure of 0.5 per cent) and Gangelt in Germany (0.28 per cent).
The usual caveats apply: most studies to detect the prevalence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus in the general population remain unpublished, and have not yet been peer-reviewed. Some are likely to be unrepresentative of the general population. The Oise study, in particular, was based on pupils, teachers and parents in a single high school which was known to be a hotspot on Covid-19 infection. At the other end of the table, Geneva has a relatively high age profile, which is likely to skew its death rate upwards.
But it is noticeable how all these estimates for IFR are markedly lower than the figures thrown about a couple of months ago, when it was widely asserted that Covid-19 was a whole magnitude worse than flu. Seasonal influenza is often quoted as having an IFR of 0.1 to 0.2 per cent. The Stanford study suggests that Covid-19 might not, after all, be more deadly than flu – although, as Ioannidis notes, the profile is very different: seasonal flu has a higher IFR in developing countries, where vaccination is rare, while Covid-19 has a higher death rate in the developed world, thanks in part of more elderly populations.
The Stanford study, however, does not include the largest antibody study to date: that involving a randomised sample of 70,000 Spanish residents, whose preliminary results were published by the Carlos III Institute of Health two weeks ago. That suggested that five per cent of the Spanish population had been infected with the virus. With 27,000 deaths in the country, that would convert to an IFR of 1.1 per cent.
Related:
DM: Lockdowns failed to alter the course of pandemic and are now destroying millions of livelihoods worldwide, JP Morgan study claims
Brandon Smith: The Economic "Reopening" Is A Fake Out
Israel Shamir: Corona conspiracies
Gilad Atzmon: Is this controlled demolition all over again
ZH: San Francisco area suicide rate exceeds Covid death toll
Trauma surgeon, Dr. deBoisblanc:
"We've never seen numbers like this, in such a short period of time," he said. "I mean we've seen a year's worth of suicide attempts in the last four weeks."ZH: "Grandma Killer" Cuomo Sent 4,300 To Nursing Homes Despite Positive COVID-19 Tests
Dr. Andrew Bostom: Covid19 Lethality: Unhysterical Data Are Emerging
Rutherford Inst: The Slippery Slope to Despotism: Paved with Lockdowns, Raids and Forced Vaccinations
Washington Times: 500 doctors tell Trump to end the coronavirus shutdown, say it will cause more deaths
I assume you've seen this fine gem:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.unz.com/akarlin/corona-ifr-1-percent/
Coronafacts: IFR ≈ 1%, Spread Low
"The Stanford study, however, does not include the largest antibody study to date: that involving a randomised sample of 70,000 Spanish residents, whose preliminary results were published by the Carlos III Institute of Health two weeks ago. That suggested that five per cent of the Spanish population had been infected with the virus. With 27,000 deaths in the country, that would convert to an IFR of 1.1 per cent."
ReplyDeleteThat's a true statement, but as Dr. Gupta stated in your recently posted video of her, there is a very strong likelihood the symptoms of infection are so mild the body's various immune defenses are sufficient to deal with the virus without the production of antibody. This, it seemed to me, was the major reason Dr. Gupta was still ready to stand by her guns.
"But it is noticeable how all these estimates for IFR are markedly lower than the figures thrown about a couple of months ago, when it was widely asserted that Covid-19 was a whole magnitude worse than flu. Seasonal influenza is often quoted as having an IFR of 0.1 to 0.2 per cent. The Stanford study suggests that Covid-19 might not, after all, be more deadly than flu – although, as Ioannidis notes, the profile is very different: seasonal flu has a higher IFR in developing countries, where vaccination is rare, while Covid-19 has a higher death rate in the developed world, thanks in part of more elderly populations."
He is using a low range (0.1 to 0.2) for IFR for the common influenza, is he not? I had previously thought the range was 0.2 to 0.6. It is extremely encouraging, though, to see better understanding of data stratification used to differentiate what's happening to different populations under different conditions and circumstances rather than lumping them all together as if this were homogeneous.
I have begun to wonder if some of this is attributable to the last hurrah of that demographic bulge we call the baby boomers. We have an aging population. In addition, the bulge, which has had so many noticeable economic, social, and political effects on entire societies as it has worked its way through the various age categories, is now firmly there at the age level of the most at risk group for the corona virus.
Was it you who posted a video of the Woodstock generation-- which is this generation-- not caring a damn during the Hong Kong flu of '69? (But now panicking so much in 2020?) Well, part of that is quite rational. In '69 this group was not at significant risk, while now in 2020, it is. I do wish, however, they hadn't given in to panic. It does contribute to the idea of their self-centeredness...The hippies became the Me generation and then the yuppies...All somewhat selfish and in their separate ways, infantile.
Thanks for the summary of the antibody data for Spain.
DeleteHere are a couple of other angles on the infection fatality rate.
(1) Here’s one line of evidence on the infection fatality rate.
Twenty percent of Stockholm residents are said to be antibody positive.
There are reported to be 10,777 confirmed cases in Stockholm, and for Sweden as a whole the death rate is about 10% of the confirmed case rate, implying about 1100 covid deaths in Stockholm. That implies an infection specific mortality rate of 0.05%, exactly the number for the UK suggested by Professor Sunetra Gupta of Oxford University.
(2)That zero point zero five percent number for the IFR in Stockholm seems to work well for the UK too.
The current infection rate has been estimated at 25%, so probably well past half way to herd immunity. There are reported to have been 36,000 covid19 deaths so far, or close to 0.1%. However, the initial mortality rate was elevated due to carnage in the care homes. As the antibody-positive count continues to rise, mortality as a percent of future infections will likely be much lower, so an end value near 0.05% looks pretty certain.
-- or maybe I have the decimal point in the wrong place!
The handling of the care homes has been criminally negligent. (Assuming it wasn't intentional.) It would have been so easy to quarantine that at-risk population.
ReplyDeleteWe still do not have mass testing or any truly statistically valid handle on the virus. This is also unacceptable. Surely by this time it could have been planned,coordinated, and completed. The US gov't has thrown trillions around. I would be very surprised if what I am talking about would even cost 500 million.
Thanks again for your work. I am still struggling for my sanity. I'm going to have to get back out. CDC still reports Alaska as zero deaths.
"We still do not have mass testing or any truly statistically valid handle on the virus."
DeleteThis is quite bizarre. Why would you not monitor the disease spread by repeated serological surveys, if you were seriously attempting to stop the spread of the disease?
China has just completed 1.5 million tests in Wuhan, with the objective of testing the entire city -- population 11 million -- within ten days. Now Americans, Brits, Canadians, etc. are obviously not so smart as Chinese.
Still we could surely do a random survey -- you know, like an opinion poll. You select a few hundred people at random and, for a fee or some other inducement, you get them to submit to testing.
You do that every couple of days and you know what you're dealing with.
But if the goal is to scare people, then any such information, even if it has been obtained, will naturally be withheld.
Why would governments want to scare people? In order to maintain the lockdown.
And why would governments want to maintain the lockdown?
Ha! that seems to be the essential question. If so, I am unsure of the answer. But here are some possibilities:
(1) To kill most of the small business sector, to the benefit of the big boys - Starbucks, MacDonalds, Amazon, etc.
(2) To drive up unemployment and thus depress wages, also to the benefit of the big boys.
(3) To drive down GDP and hence consumption spending leading to reductions in all kinds of pollution, CO2, plebs at the better beaches and tourist spots, traffic congestion, etc.
(4) To drive down fertility rates and hence population worldwide (despite the fact that fertility rates in Europe, North America, Japan, etc. are already well below replacement).