3 ms·

The WHO published a paper estimating the aggregate IFR to be ~0.2% and suggested social distancing measures targeting the most at risk [1]. Essentially the WHO

The WHO published a paper estimating the aggregate IFR to be ~0.2% and suggested social distancing measures targeting the most at risk [1]. Essentially the WHO changed its stance to match what Jay was arguing for. 1. https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/340124/PMC7947934.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/340124/PMC7...

microtherion 4y ago
Using a Ioannidis paper to back Bhattacharya. The perfect crankception.
- Manuel_D 4y ago
  Are there specific criticisms of methodology you want to make? Or is the simple fact that you disagree with the conclusions enough for you to discount the study?
  - microtherion 4y ago
    First of all, the two are both geographically and ideologically closely related — it's like "proving" Marx was right by quoting Engels. Second, the 0.2% IFR is patent nonsense. To pick only one example, Russia had an excess mortality of 1.22 million people in 2020-2022 [1]. A 0.2% IFR would imply 610 million infections. Russia has a population of 146 million, so every single inhabitant would have had more than 4 infections on average (with zero cross infection immunity). There were several regions in the world where in September 2000, when this paper appeared and multiple infections were not very common yet, more than 0.2% of the population had died already. [1] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/cumulative-excess-deaths-covid?country=USA~RUS~MEX~BRA~IRN~PER https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/cumulative-excess-deaths-...
    - Manuel_D 4y ago
      Excess deaths aren't entirely caused by Covid. People ceased getting medical care due to lockdowns, for instance. Furthermore, you're cherry-picking examples. As per your own source, the USA had an excess mortality of 1.2 million, out of a population of 330 million. There's 100 million reported infections, and with 70% or more cases being asymptomatic the actual infection rate is probably 300-400 million. Even if we're assuming every excess death was a Covid death, that's an infection fatality rate of 0.4 to 0.3% - not far off of the paper's estimate.
      - microtherion 4y ago
        > People ceased getting medical care due to lockdowns, for instance Many countries had no lockdowns to speak of, and the vast majority had none after vaccinations became available. > that's an infection fatality rate of 0.4 to 0.3% - not far off of the paper's estimate That's still double the rate in the paper. And the whole assumption of the Great Barrington declaration, of which Bhattacharya was an author and Ioannidis a sympathizer, was that the rate would drop considerably on reinfection, because herd immunity would protect the population.
        Manuel_D 4y ago
        > That's still double the rate in the paper. No, it's 1.5x on the lower end. Taking into account the fact that not all excess deaths are necessarily due to covid and the paper is very close. And the paper is still much closer than the 1-3% fatality rates often touted at the time. But then again, we're just randos on the internet. So let's trust the experts: subsequent research has largely vindicated his conclusions. Later research has put the IFR rate at 0.47% to 0.31%: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35219376/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35219376/ This study only examined infections up until January of 2021, so vaccination is not in play here. > as that the rate would drop considerably on reinfection, because herd immunity would protect the population. Which is correct. Reinfections are less likely to result in severe symptoms. Even the CDC has acknowledged this: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/clinical-care/clinical-considerations-reinfection.html#:~:text=Symptoms%20during%20reinfection%20are%20likely,severe%20COVID%2D19%20during%20reinfection https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/clinical-care/....

microtherion 4y ago

Using a Ioannidis paper to back Bhattacharya. The perfect crankception.

Manuel_D 4y ago
Are there specific criticisms of methodology you want to make? Or is the simple fact that you disagree with the conclusions enough for you to discount the study?
- microtherion 4y ago
  First of all, the two are both geographically and ideologically closely related — it's like "proving" Marx was right by quoting Engels. Second, the 0.2% IFR is patent nonsense. To pick only one example, Russia had an excess mortality of 1.22 million people in 2020-2022 [1]. A 0.2% IFR would imply 610 million infections. Russia has a population of 146 million, so every single inhabitant would have had more than 4 infections on average (with zero cross infection immunity). There were several regions in the world where in September 2000, when this paper appeared and multiple infections were not very common yet, more than 0.2% of the population had died already. [1] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/cumulative-excess-deaths-covid?country=USA~RUS~MEX~BRA~IRN~PER https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/cumulative-excess-deaths-...
  - Manuel_D 4y ago
    Excess deaths aren't entirely caused by Covid. People ceased getting medical care due to lockdowns, for instance. Furthermore, you're cherry-picking examples. As per your own source, the USA had an excess mortality of 1.2 million, out of a population of 330 million. There's 100 million reported infections, and with 70% or more cases being asymptomatic the actual infection rate is probably 300-400 million. Even if we're assuming every excess death was a Covid death, that's an infection fatality rate of 0.4 to 0.3% - not far off of the paper's estimate.
    - microtherion 4y ago
      > People ceased getting medical care due to lockdowns, for instance Many countries had no lockdowns to speak of, and the vast majority had none after vaccinations became available. > that's an infection fatality rate of 0.4 to 0.3% - not far off of the paper's estimate That's still double the rate in the paper. And the whole assumption of the Great Barrington declaration, of which Bhattacharya was an author and Ioannidis a sympathizer, was that the rate would drop considerably on reinfection, because herd immunity would protect the population.
      - Manuel_D 4y ago
        > That's still double the rate in the paper. No, it's 1.5x on the lower end. Taking into account the fact that not all excess deaths are necessarily due to covid and the paper is very close. And the paper is still much closer than the 1-3% fatality rates often touted at the time. But then again, we're just randos on the internet. So let's trust the experts: subsequent research has largely vindicated his conclusions. Later research has put the IFR rate at 0.47% to 0.31%: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35219376/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35219376/ This study only examined infections up until January of 2021, so vaccination is not in play here. > as that the rate would drop considerably on reinfection, because herd immunity would protect the population. Which is correct. Reinfections are less likely to result in severe symptoms. Even the CDC has acknowledged this: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/clinical-care/clinical-considerations-reinfection.html#:~:text=Symptoms%20during%20reinfection%20are%20likely,severe%20COVID%2D19%20during%20reinfection https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/clinical-care/....