 |
| Open cafes in Stockholm, Sweden |
CDC 0.26% Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) See here.
CDC 0.1% annual Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) for
Seasonal Flu
When I supported temporary two week lockdown to ensure hospital capacity was preserved, it was based on the fact that we were facing a novel conronavirsus and that the official World Health Organization (WHO) Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) was at 3.4%. The Centre for Evidence Based Medicine (CEMB, Oxford University), gives a global estimate of 0.1 - 0.41%, including all potential regional caveats. Again, a huge difference from the "lockdown" justification numbers. If we take the highest estimate of the CEMB, the WHO's estimate is STILL 8.3 times HIGHER.
Further, the Models presented in early-late March continued to estimate the 3% plus figures. The two week temporary lockdown - so we were told based on these "official" numbers - to preserve hospital capacity (for the predicted massive overflow of patients), quickly morphed into an enforced quarantine on a healthy population (under the politically correct phrase, "social distancing").
John Ioannidis of Stanford who was skeptical of these apocalyptic predictions in mid-March (since proven correct) extrapolated much preliminary evidence by analyzing the data from the cruise ship, the Diamond Princess. What emerged amongst this mostly elderly population is six deaths amongst just over 700. The CDC officially gave the Diamond Princess an IFR rate of 0.63%. The WHO IFR predictions were nearly six times HIGHER.
Flattening the curve is theoretically valid, as well as practically valid, if the pathogen actually is killing very high numbers of people, e.g. IFR 2.0% +. Otherwise with an extended lockdown we see an actual spike in deaths due to deaths unrelated to SARS-CoV-2. We are in fact seeing this already and into the future. There are already multiple reports coming in of deaths due to lockdown and cancellation of surgery, treatment. Lockdown can actually do more damage than good. As we see the real IFR, the lockdown beyond early April is irrational, not based on the evidence. If we follow the evidence emerging over April and into May we can see that faculty data led to faulty decisions. We now know the Canadian healthcare system was never overwhelmed and never would have been. We should have reopened in early April. In retrospect (as Sweden is showing) we should have never closed. A bit more on that later.
The most important thing during any epidemic or alleged epidemic is to identify the IFR. We now have emerging evidence: Santa Clara County (population 1.9 million) out of a sample of 3,330 adults tested for SARS-CoV2 antibodies, the extrapolated infection for the County was (in early April) between 48,000-81,000 (50-85 MORE than those as confirmed cases). The IFR for Santa Clara is 0.12-0.2%. The WHO's IFR is 17-29 times HIGHER than what has emerged in Santa Clara County.
In LA County (population 7,9 million) out of a sample of 863 adults tested for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, the extrapolated infection rate for the County was (in early April) between 280,000- 547,000 adults (35-68 MORE than those as confirmed cases). The IFR for LA County is 0.13-0.3%. The WHO's IFR is 13-26 HIGHER than what has emerged in LA County. These figures coming out in early April, were again confirmed by mid-April: still the lockdown continued.
It should also be noted that in NYC the IFR rate is estimated to being between 0.5 and 0.8%. That can be explained in three ways: very high-density population, a percentage of the population with respiratory/immune conditions due to to inhalation of residual effects of 9/11, and grave mismanagement, (in fact criminal) by Governor Cuomo whereby (e.g.) over 5,000 elderly have been identified as unnecessary deaths. As such, this figure is skewed but still indicative that IFR rates are drastically below the initial predictions that were used to justify a lockdown. The CDC 0.26% is well within estimates of both these two samples.
Flattening the curve is theoretically valid, as well as practically valid, if the pathogen actually is killing very high numbers of people, e.g. IFR 2.0% +. Otherwise with an extended lockdown we see an actual spike in deaths due to deaths unrelated to SARS-CoV-2. We are in fact seeing this already and into the future. There are already multiple reports coming in of deaths due to lockdown and cancellation of surgery, treatment. Lockdown can actually do more damage than good. As we see the real IFR, the lockdown beyond early April is irrational, not based on the evidence. If we follow the evidence emerging over April and into May we can see that faculty data led to faulty decisions. We now know the Canadian healthcare system was never overwhelmed and never would have been. We should have reopened in early April. In retrospect (as Sweden is showing) we should have never closed. A bit more on that later.
The most important thing during any epidemic or alleged epidemic is to identify the IFR. We now have emerging evidence: Santa Clara County (population 1.9 million) out of a sample of 3,330 adults tested for SARS-CoV2 antibodies, the extrapolated infection for the County was (in early April) between 48,000-81,000 (50-85 MORE than those as confirmed cases). The IFR for Santa Clara is 0.12-0.2%. The WHO's IFR is 17-29 times HIGHER than what has emerged in Santa Clara County.
In LA County (population 7,9 million) out of a sample of 863 adults tested for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, the extrapolated infection rate for the County was (in early April) between 280,000- 547,000 adults (35-68 MORE than those as confirmed cases). The IFR for LA County is 0.13-0.3%. The WHO's IFR is 13-26 HIGHER than what has emerged in LA County. These figures coming out in early April, were again confirmed by mid-April: still the lockdown continued.
It should also be noted that in NYC the IFR rate is estimated to being between 0.5 and 0.8%. That can be explained in three ways: very high-density population, a percentage of the population with respiratory/immune conditions due to to inhalation of residual effects of 9/11, and grave mismanagement, (in fact criminal) by Governor Cuomo whereby (e.g.) over 5,000 elderly have been identified as unnecessary deaths. As such, this figure is skewed but still indicative that IFR rates are drastically below the initial predictions that were used to justify a lockdown. The CDC 0.26% is well within estimates of both these two samples.
In comparison the H3N2 Virus (so-called Hong Kong Flu) of 1968-70 killed (according to CDC figures) approximately 100,000 Americans (US population 200 million), and between 1-4 million worldwide. If we extrapolate the SARS-CoV-2 deaths we are being told (and the debate as to if they are all really from SARS-CoV2 is another story with multiple sources indicating the figures in the western nations are being artificially inflated) the US deaths for SAR-CoV-2 should be in excess of 170,000. The US economy was not shut down. Readers may be interested to remember that during the "Hong Kong Flu" of 1986-1969 two HUGE music festivals were held: Woodstock in 1969 (attendance 400,000), and The Isle of Wight Festival of 1970 (attendance 600,000 plus). Just think about that!
Sweden. They were blessed by not being in a major air hub and as such had the ability to give that 2-week assessment to see if the Models and predictions were actually holding up against the emerging evidence. They were not. They also have a brilliant and gusty Chief Medical Officer who was able to withstand incredible international pressure to cave. He did not. He followed the evidence.
Sweden has minimal social distancing (suggested, not enforced), and the economy is open. The IFR is comparable to data from similar countries in population, urban density, health care system and demographics who have enforced strict lockdowns. There is no difference in death rates and infections between those in lockdown and those not. That is why the media is silent about Sweden. Sweden in vivo disproves the lockdown. In fact, there is a lo of scientific data that carte blanche lockdowns are actually counterproductive and can exacerbate infection. But that is another story. Read about it here.
As to why this lockdown is going on (some are now claiming they want lockdowns into 2022) is a good question. I think there are two possibilities: the first being that politicians' primary concern are votes and it is very hard for a politician to admit error. Nonetheless, a politician can still extricate him or herself by stating the truth: Models and predictions were given them that were wrong. But there still are consequences, so they are motivated to go along. The second point is that this virus was seized upon by militant atheistic globalists at the outset to advance an agenda; every passing day proves this.
Sweden. They were blessed by not being in a major air hub and as such had the ability to give that 2-week assessment to see if the Models and predictions were actually holding up against the emerging evidence. They were not. They also have a brilliant and gusty Chief Medical Officer who was able to withstand incredible international pressure to cave. He did not. He followed the evidence.
Sweden has minimal social distancing (suggested, not enforced), and the economy is open. The IFR is comparable to data from similar countries in population, urban density, health care system and demographics who have enforced strict lockdowns. There is no difference in death rates and infections between those in lockdown and those not. That is why the media is silent about Sweden. Sweden in vivo disproves the lockdown. In fact, there is a lo of scientific data that carte blanche lockdowns are actually counterproductive and can exacerbate infection. But that is another story. Read about it here.
As to why this lockdown is going on (some are now claiming they want lockdowns into 2022) is a good question. I think there are two possibilities: the first being that politicians' primary concern are votes and it is very hard for a politician to admit error. Nonetheless, a politician can still extricate him or herself by stating the truth: Models and predictions were given them that were wrong. But there still are consequences, so they are motivated to go along. The second point is that this virus was seized upon by militant atheistic globalists at the outset to advance an agenda; every passing day proves this.
We have gone from a 2, 3-week lockdown to now three months and counting all based on a hugely inaccurate IFR. We have people dying because they have been denied medical treatment over the past two months, we have decimated economies, crushing debt, massive unemployment, suicides, substance abuse etc. We have to start asking “QUI BONO”?
Please read an op-ed piece in The Guardian online and tell me what you think:
ReplyDelete*Sweden's Covid-19 policy is a model for the right. It's also a deadly folly.* Nick Cohen, 23 May 2020.
His column reads more like a political tract than a review of the evidence. He hand is shown by trying to link Sweden to "Trump's America". It is also quaint when he laments "administrators", when he himself has placed all his trust in lockdown "epidemiology".
ReplyDeleteOf course there will be no herd immunity by May. We won't achieve herd immunity until it hits about 60% and that will take months, into the Fall. Bt lockdowns are not the way to go to achieve herd immunity.
Sweden is comparable to Ireland, Netherlands,etc. They have plateaued, but it is in the downward direction. Poland, which has smaller deaths per million, is now increasing in new cases. So these infections are very fluid. If we were going to see a disaster in Sweden it would have been seen by now as the infections initially asymptomatic would have exploded in a apocalypse of death.
Bill Gates is a known sponsor of The Guardian for in excess of $100,000,000. Pocket money for Bill, but a lifeline for The Guardian.
ReplyDeleteThat's a shed-load of sponsorship, Barona. But it won't give Gates editorial influence; he likes what The Guardian is saying already; and he likes its unique position of independence in British print journalism. Hence his support.
ReplyDeleteAn old Catholic friend of mine (deceased) used to read the paper daily. He still referred to it as *The Manchester Guardian* being himself a citizen of Lancashire's great city. But he would often say of it, with a good-natured chuckle, *That's a typical Guardian piece, slanted in a way that tells readers what they want to hear.*
As for Gates, he is a complex figure. Maybe he sees the folly of neoliberal economics which, as far as I can see, has done such harm to the world, and certainly to the workplace in Britain.
My mother, dying peacefully at home aged 97, was looked after by careworkers who were all brilliant at their job. They worked for a private company. Every single one of those ladies, including the shyest, told me how ruthless and cost-cutting the company was. I had to ask them and draw them out.
It is the same with so many workers that I speak to in Scotland and England. Managers are bad at managing. Neoliberal economics makes wage-slaves of us all and creates sociopathic management. A big generalisation, I know, but nothing I see and hear makes me think I am wrong.