by Mikko Paunio, MD (University of Helsinki), MHS (Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health), adjunct professor (general epidemiology) at the University of Helsinki
At the heart of the WHO’s risk assessment, at the start of the pandemic, was the assumption that only 1% of those infected would show no symptoms.12
The claim that few of the infections would be symptomless – and thus that everyone would become ill and that many people would die – paved the way to weeks of horror stories on the BBC, CNN, and in the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Guardian. And even more sober outlets like the Financial Times and the Economist followed suit, with little by way of analysis of what was actually known. In fact, the WHO’s claim was quickly rebutted by a member of its own Infectious Disease Catastrophe Committee,1 but too late to prevent panic spreading. The result was a lockdown across much of the world, the collateral damage from which will do far more harm than the virus.
A major serological survey from Spain3 now shows how wrong the initial WHO risk assessment was.
Spanish serosurvey
The first wave of the pandemic caused around 27,000 deaths in Spain, a figure so small in comparison with the size of the population that it will probably have little effect on the overall 2020 mortality rate. Those who succumbed were mostly frail old people in nursing homes and had only short life expectancy.
The WHO claimed at the end of February that the virus might kill up to 4% of those infected.1 I have now tabulated data for the case fatality rate (CFR), infection fatality rate (IFR) and the mortality in Spain (Table 1). The rightmost column shows the age-specific COVID-19 mortality. Even amongst the most vulnerable – people over the age of 90 – the survival rate is above 99%. Below 60 years of age, the death rate so far – with the first wave of the pandemic about to come to an end – is 3.6 per 100,000 population.
Symptomless infections
The Spanish serological survey was based on a random sample of 102,803 individuals, although only 60,983 individuals were traced and agreed to be tested. A quick serological test determined the presence of antibodies in the cohort, and the study authors also asked them about respiratory symptoms during the epidemic period. It turned out that around 5% had SARS-CoV-2 antibodies.
Among those surveyed, 257 had previously tested positive via a PCR test, and 87% of these had antibodies. These few people were the only ones who knew for sure they were already infected, though 14% thought they had COVID-19 like symptoms. Based on this PCR data it can be deduced that the quick serological test had 87% sensitivity.
Those without any respiratory symptoms (40,202) and those with mild flu-like symptoms had an antibody prevalence rate of 3.1%. This means there were 1,629 individuals who had become infected without knowing it. When these 1,629 people are divided by the number of former PCR-positive individuals, we get a ratio of 6.6:1. After correcting for the sensitivity of the test, we get a ratio of 7.6:1. This tells us that for each infection established by PCR there are 7.6 people who are infected but do not know it.
Someone who tests positive for the virus under PCR may never develop symptoms. Thus the ratio of symptomless to symptomatic infections may be even higher than 7.6. When you look at Table 1 you can see that there are almost nine times more serologically established infections than there are confirmed COVID-19 cases. The 60,000 people tested in Spain will be re-tested twice in the coming month, so we will soon have a better idea on this question. It is also worth noting that not all who lack antibodies lack immunity.4
It is also worth noting a study of an outbreak of the virus on a cruise ship on a voyage to Antarctica. All passengers and crew were tested, and found that 81% of those infected were non-symptomatic.5 And even then, the non-symptomatic/symptomatic ratio of 4.4 reported will be an underestimate, since the PCR test used would not pick up all those who were infected.
Mortality
Next I compared the mortality rate you would expect based on the WHO assumption of few asymptomatic infections to reality: the number of infections in Spain based on the serological data, both on relative and absolute scales (Table 2).
Back in March, and for several weeks, the mainstream media were reporting COVID-19 case fatality rates of around 10% in Spain and Italy. But the reality of large numbers of asymptomatic infections means that the infection mortality rate is only one tenth of this figure. When the case fatality rates publicised by the WHO are compared to the true rates, one finds that the WHO overstated elevenfold the risk to under-60s, although that risk was very small. For older age groups, where the true risk was much higher, the overstatement was less – but especially significant in absolute scale. For example, for those aged 80–89 years, the IFR was 9%, or roughly a third of the level claimed by the WHO.
An infection fatality rate (IFR) of 1% is 10 times higher than that of seasonal flu. This figure, derived from the Spanish data, has been widely interpreted in the media to be generalisable to other countries, but this is not the case. In Southern Europe there is much more contact between young and old people than in Northern Europe, increasing the number exposed there. Also the population of Spain is relatively elderly, and wide-spectrum antibiotic use is rampant, potentially hampering treatment of secondary bacterial pneumonias and other conditions. These factors may well explain the high IFR in Spain.
Iceland serosurvey
The suggestion that the IFRs of each country or even subpopulations within societies must be considered one by one becomes clear and confirmed by recent data from Iceland (Table 3). Currently, it has 1,804 confirmed COVID-19 cases and just ten deaths. There is nobody in hospital and, to all intents and purposes, the epidemic is over. Interestingly, among those who contracted COVID-19, all eight of those aged over 90 survived.6 The very low level of deaths means that it is likely that the IFR will be very low too. The ratio of asymptomatic infections to confirmed cases can be as low as five and would still imply an IFR similar to that of seasonal flu.
The CFR was 18 times higher in Spain than Iceland, with the notable differences seen across the age groups, (80–89 years is an exception), which tells us that the older age distribution of COVID-19 cases in Spain does not explain all the differences. It is possible that aggressive PCR-screening of the population in Iceland might have skewed confirmed COVID-19 cases towards those with a milder natural history than in Spain; i.e. Iceland might have diagnosed more mild cases than Spain. If Iceland had the same age distribution of COVID-19 cases as Spain, there would have been 86 deaths, not ten. If Iceland had both Spain’s COVID-19 age distribution and its CFR, the death toll would have risen to 178. These remarkable differences show that it is not possible to generalise the widely disseminated one percent SARS-CoV-2 infection fatality rate of Spain to other countries. Iceland seems to have able to protect its elderly much better than Spain.
Other serosurveys
An even less worrying picture emerges from the serosurvey of LA County, California published in JAMA7 Here, on around 10th April 2020, there were 44 times more serologically established infections than confirmed COVID-19 cases – a remarkable contrast to the WHO claim that only 1% of infections were asymptomatic. The researchers involved have said that there was a selection bias in their study, and it was likely that symptomless infections were under-represented. If one calculates IFR of SARS-CoV from this material by assuming that there were around 1,220 cumulative deaths in early May in La County, one gets an IFR of 0.33%.
Conclusions
The outbreaks of COVID-19 we have seen across the world have remained exponential for only a very short period.8 We do not fully understand why, but it is possible that non-SARS coronaviruses, which account for around 20% of common colds, might have given cell-mediated immunity to some sections of the population.9 Either way, the global impact of the virus remains small, despite what the media would have you think.
| Table 1. Key metrics calculated from Spanish data. | |||||||||
| Age | Deaths | Confirmed cases | Antibody prevalence (%) | Real number of SARS-CoV-2 infections in population | Population (m) | Case fatality rate (%) | Infection fatality rate (%) | Corrected infection fatality rate (%) | COVID-19 death rate in Spain |
| <60 | 1,269 | 131,688 | 4.2 | 1,470,000 | 35.0 | 1.0 | 0.09 | 0.08 | 3.6/100,000 |
| 60-69 | 2,376 | 39,806 | 6.0 | 312,000 | 5.2 | 6.0 | 0.76 | 0.66 | 4.6/10,000 |
| 70-79 | 6,696 | 38,443 | 6.5 | 253,500 | 3.9 | 17.4 | 2.64 | 2.30 | 1.7/1000 |
| 80-89 | 11,151 | 42,805 | 5.4 | 124,200 | 2.3 | 26.0 | 8.98 | 7.81 | 4.8/1000 |
| 90+ | 5,481 | 19,903 | 5.8 | 34,800 | 0.6 | 27.5 | 15.75 | 13.70 | 9.1/1000 |
| Total | 26,973 | 272,645 | 5.0 | 2,194,000* | 47.0 | 9.9 | 1.22 | 1.06 | 5.7/10,000 |
* 5% × 47,000,000 = 2,350,000; figure differs as age-specific serology prevalence means are not weighted
| Table 2. WHO overstatement of risk | ||||
| Risk assessment (%) | Exagerration | |||
| Age | Per WHO | Per serological data | Relative (×) | Absolute (%) |
| <60 | 1.0 | 0.08 | 11.1 | 0.80 |
| 60–69 | 6.0 | 0.66 | 7.9 | 5.34 |
| 70–79 | 17.4 | 2.30 | 6.6 | 15.1 |
| 80–89 | 26.0 | 7.81 | 2.9 | 18.9 |
| 90+ | 27.5 | 13.70 | 1.7 | 13.8 |
| Total | 9.9 | 1.06 | 8.2 | 8.84 |
| Table 3. COVID-19 case fatality rate (CFR) in Spain and Iceland and CFR ratio Spain vs. Iceland and expected number of deaths in Iceland assuming age distribution of COVID-19 of Spain and CFR of Iceland and expected number of deaths in Iceland assuming age distribution and CFR of Spain. | ||||||||||
| CFR | COVID-19 age distribution | Iceland Covid-19 cases assuming same age distribution of cases as Spain | Expected deaths in Iceland assuming: | |||||||
| Age group | Spain | Iceland | Ratio | Spain | Iceland | age distribution of COVID-19 of Spain and CFR of Iceland | age distribution and CFR of Spain | |||
| <60 | 1269/131688 | 0.96 | 1*/1501 | 0.067 | 14.3 | 48.3 | 83.2 | 871 | 0.6 | 8.4 |
| 60-69 | 2376/39806 | 5.97 | 2/215 | 0.93 | 6.4 | 14.6 | 11.9 | 263 | 2.4 | 15.7 |
| 70-79 | 6696/38443 | 17.42 | 3/62 | 4.83 | 3.6 | 14.1 | 3.4 | 254 | 12.3 | 44.2 |
| 80-89 | 11151/42805 | 26.05 | 4/16 | 25.00 | 1.0 | 15.7 | 0.9 | 283 | 70.8 | 73.7 |
| 90+ | 5481/19903 | 27.53 | 0/8 | 0.00 | N/A | 7.3 | 0.4 | 132 | 0 | 36.3 |
| Total | 26973/272645 | 9.89 | 10/1804 | 0.55 | 18.0 | 100 | 99.8 | 1803 | 86.1 | 178.3 |
* An Australian tourist in his 30s
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
I started in tech long before it was ‘cool’. There is indeed good and bad. It depends on the actors and the actors running our ‘systems’ are for the most part, quite evil, totalitarian and in my opinion in many ways, rather idiotic as most totalitarians are. These actors will use technology to tie you down, censor you, track you, make sure you comply and if not, you will lose your bank account and job. The actors, not the underlying technology is to blame. Akin to the use of guns, or cars, if you drive drunk and stoned.
We see the abuse of technology and ‘data’ in the Rona scamdemic and Climate bollocks amongst many other examples. I would say it is more the cult of $cience and $cientism, using technology as a means of control to lever power and profits and kill off our freedom.
Trust big tec at your peril, even if, and it’s a very big if, it appears benign and helpful.
The death of spontaneity is already upon us – try just going to your local train station/airport to go somewhere – No can do without bigbrother knowing all about you.
Submit to change What is your Vax staus – that will be the new normal of course for the Greater Good. (Blair you utter bastard, I pray you rot in Hell).
I often wonder what George Orwell would have made of Clown World.
The RPTB never stop. Control of the MSM is the key.
RPTB? I’ve seen this a few times recently, but unclear about the initialism’s meaning.
I assume ” … powers that be”, but the R?
“Real”
“Modern technology teaches man to take for granted the world he is looking at; he takes no time to retreat and reflect. Technology lures him on, dropping him into its wheels and movements. No rest, no meditation, no reflection, no conversation – the senses are continually overloaded with stimuli. [Man] doesn’t learn to question his world anymore; the screen offers him answers-ready-made.”
“The world of tomorrow will witness a tremendous battle between technology and psychology. It will be a fight of technology versus nature, of systematic conditioning versus creative spontaneity.”
Joos Meerloo
To be clear I think we cannot blame technology much the same as we cannot blame science. It is always people, whether it’s malevolence or stupidity.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltjI3BXKBgY
Ascent Of Man, episode 11 – Knowledge Or Certainty
“It’s said that science will dehumanize people and turn them into numbers. That’s false, tragically false. Look for yourself. This is the concentration camp and crematorium at Auschwitz. This is where people were turned into numbers. Into this pond were flushed the ashes of some four million people. And that was not done by gas. It was done by arrogance, it was done by dogma, it was done by ignorance. When people believe that they have absolute knowledge, with no test in reality, this is how they behave. This is what men do when they aspire to the knowledge of gods.
Science is a very human form of knowledge. We are always at the brink of the known; we always feel forward for what is to be hoped. Every judgment in science stands on the edge of error and is personal. Science is a tribute to what we can know although we are fallible. In the end, the words were said by Oliver Cromwell: “I beseech you in the bowels of Christ: Think it possible you may be mistaken.”
I owe it as a scientist to my friend Leo Szilard, I owe it as a human being to the many members of my family who died here, to stand here as a survivor and a witness. We have to cure ourselves of the itch for absolute knowledge and power. We have to close the distance between the push-button order and the human act. We have to touch people.”
Is that Bronowski from the 1970’s? It’s very good.
Regardless of the technology, the same wisdom applies to all ages of homo sapiens.
It is he and I fully agree. I find the last sentence the most important and moving, especially against the backdrop of all the tyranny of Covid where human contact was outlawed. In contrast to Jacob Bronowski’s plea above, here is an excerpt from Klaus Schwab’s book about resetting Humanity.
Page 156 – Accelerating the digital transformation
In one form or another, social and physical distancing measures are likely to persist after the pandemic itself subsides, justifying the decision in many companies from different industries to accelerate automation. After a while, the enduring concerns about technological unemployment will recede as societies emphasize the need to restructure the workplace in a way that minimizes close human contact. Indeed, automation technologies are particularly suited to a world in which human beings can’t get too close to each other or are willing to reduce their interactions.
Yes. Superb. Still available on DVD I believe.
And free on Archive.org
https://archive.org/details/the-ascent-of-man-ep1
And here on YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pMhqKVYNHA&list=PLVVydzWYmxcl5m0wXY5X176IvbJoLrz6q&pp=iAQB
i.e. Hubris on a monumental scale.
And as those of us lucky enough to have studied the Classics, Hubris (not “pride”, rather “breaking well defined boundaries”, is ALWAYS followed by Nemesis.
We all need to beware of what will be claimed in the name of AI. It is called Artificial Intelligence because it has no real intelligence. It is an artefact of human minds and is likely to embody their prejudices and preferences. This is already showing as left wing bias in Chatbot.
I recall an online discussion between a retired pilot and a young computer programmer. The programmer was proposing the removal of the ‘error prone’ human to be replaced with ‘reliable’ computers. The retired pilot urged the programmer that it is a very bad idea to replace the pilot. The programmer accused the pilot of trying to protect his job (the pilot was retired). The pilot’s age and years of experience was lost on the young programmer as lacking in years himself he had no concept of what experience actually is. The retired pilot was Capt. Sullenberger.
I picked up this discussion with another programmer and to back up the pilot story above I recounted a friends story about his father, a retired airline pilot. He was originally in the RAF and moved into civilian flying. Before a fight he would calculate his route, timings etc. He would then load the same inputs into the onboard computer and check if the computer gave the same result. If it didn’t he would ignore it. The programmer I was discussing this with asserted that this pilot was wrong and should always believe the computer.
“There are old pilots, and there are bold pilots. But there are no old, bold pilots”
Anon
“It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance.”
T. Sowell
“I’m not young enough to know everything”
J. M. Barrie
Back in the early 1990s New Scientist ran an article about automation and concluded that there were two different drivers which had profoundly different outcomes. Either automation was used to replace humans or it was used to enhance humans. In the case of aviation automation must only ever be an enhancement to the skills of the pilot (this also applies to Sub-Postmasters), although there are also mundane and reliably repetitive jobs where automation is a bonus. In the case of flying auto-pilots have been a great help by reducing the work load, but it is also understood that automation can lull pilots into carelessness, or worse de-skill the pilots. This was evident in the case of Air France 447. Following this accident pilot training to deal with ‘upsets’ was re-introduced as it had been reduced in the belief that the auto-pilots would prevent the aircraft getting outside the flight ‘envelope’. And then there was the two Boeing 737 Max accidents where the auto-pilot flew the planes into the ground and the pilots were unable to dis-engage the auto-pilot. Automation must always, always be our servant.
The graph below shows a graph from Hans Rosling’s excellent book FactFullness, showing the dramatic improvements in airline safety since the 1930s. This is how Hans described it:
“Back in the 1930s, flying was really dangerous and passengers were scared away by the many accidents. Flight authorities across the world had understood the potential of commercial passenger air traffic, but they also realized flying had to become safer before most people would dare to try it. In 1944 they all met in Chicago to agree on common rules and signed a contract with a very important Annex 13: a common form for incident reports, which they agreed to share, so they could all learn from each other’s mistakes.
Since then, every crash or incident involving a commercial passenger airplane has been investigated and reported; risk factors have been systematically identified; and improved safety procedures have been adopted, worldwide. Wow! I’d say the Chicago Convention is one of humanity’s most impressive collaborations ever. It’s amazing how well people can work together when they share the same fears.”
All good, but what is interesting is the lion’s share of improvements that happened before 1944 convention. In addition fully automated airliners start appearing in the 1970s except the general trajectory of improvements remains the same. All this safety has been achieved not through regulation or punishment, but through pilots sharing their experiences and through skilled and diligent analysis of accidents and the general application of the knowledge gained across the various contributing professions, and for the most part, across the planet. In every case it is humans that make it all work.
When we don’t have religion we don’t believe in nothing, we believe in anything.. I can’t even remember whose that quote is, but it’s one of the best!
Climbing on the shoulders of the giants of the Enlightenment of the past 400 years, we collectively, complacently imagine that we are so wise and intelligent.
The opposite is often the case and ‘knowing thyself ‘ remains as elusive as at any time in human history.
The cult of Science/Technology and the online/digital world of the past few decades deludes us into believing we are all knowing, with our super intelligent electronica to hand.
In fact the opposite is, as often as not, true. Hence the belief that computer modelling, based on the often highly questionable assumptions of the programmer, have more validity than mere speculation, or that any computer programme is somehow more able than the abilities of the human being that created it.
The evidence of the online age of the 21st century, with infinite distraction, and with the decreasing attention span of most of the population, is a return to pseudo religions and cultism, as witnessed with the, yet to be proven, climate emergency death cult, with it’s unquestioning belief system, and it’s need to silence and vilify heretics.
Science and technology are not cults. It is people that become cultish, and arrogant and hubristic. I think that we have been predominantly collectivist and cultish for most of human history. In addition when humans come up with better and more powerful ways of doing things these become targets for corruption, whether by an individual or the group. Thus we have Galileo being threatened with torture and death unless he renounced the idea that we lived in a Solar System instead of an Earth centred system. The Church had become cultish and malevolent towards any threat to it’s power. Jon Huss was burned at the stake for having Bibles written in English. Therefore, I’m not convinced that the predicament we are is entirely due to a lack of religion. Most people behave in a civil manner and not because of the threat of punishment if they don’t. The Rotherham rape gangs are not lacking in religion. Although I do agree with your last paragraph.
GK Chesterton. And boy, was he right. Climate Change for example; Marxism, all full-blown quasi-religious faiths, in which belief replaces reality. And Covidmania/Jabmania
Konstantin Kisin opened up his Substack for questions for one hour yesterday.
I asked him a question:
“What will constitute a meaningful life once AI takes over?
Jobs left will be in IT and regulatory bodies.
Shall humanity just eat and drink and be happy?
Will humans feel satisfied and meaningful in that world? Purposeful?
Sorry, feeling a bit gloomy on this wonderful sunny day!”
Konstantin Kisin’s answer:
“Humans will never feel happy or satisfied by eating and drinking and consuming. Life is suffering. Life is struggle. Without that, there can be no meaning. But, like all disruptive technology, I think AI will simply change the nature of the challenges we face. We will find new struggles and new challenges to overcome.”
Re. The Post Office scam, even the big banks have errors that affect people. Here’s a little extract from a recent document issued to me in my account with one of them: “Between 3 January 2019 and 27 July 2022, we have identified that as a result of an error some customers’ may have incorrect figures showing on their Return on Investment figures within their GIC costs and Charges statements. We’re really sorry about this. This issue has been fixed and all future statements will show the correct figures. If you have any questions about this or would like us to provide corrected figures or any previous Costs and Charges statements, please let us know by calling us on the number at the bottom of this statement.” It came to light on 16/1/2024 (sic). It won’t be in the press.
I think this article is good and quite true (he might have said that hugely increased use of technology is aided and abetted by the desire of so many for convenience, time-saving, whatever it might be, as well as just pure laziness). However, I believe that we need to acknowledge our sinfulness (inadequacy??) before God and turn to him in repentance – in the face of all that is going on in our world, we have no hope otherwise!
Top article on the flawed ideology of some of the major people behind it:
The Right Wing Progressives (RWP, like Elon Musk) and their commonalities and differences with conservatives, lefties and libertarians.
https://theupheaval.substack.com/p/the-rise-of-the-right-wing-progressives
More here
https://theupheaval.substack.com/p/the-rise-of-the-right-wing-progressives
You can all start by ditching your Smartphones (form which every piece of personal data is scraped off to be used against you). It will also help you to live in the here and now – someone on their Smartphone is not here, not present. Appalling effect on society
And this…
“The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for the Future at the New Frontier of Power by Shoshana Zuboff — Big Tech is stealing our lives”
https://archive.ph/D0dJi#selection-2527.8-2527.149