There’s been a lot of worry about ‘misinformation’ around COVID-19, with numerous calls to suppress anything that doesn’t agree with the WHO’s current line, and news and social media companies all too happy to oblige.
Sometimes, though, the worst offenders are the mainstream sources themselves.
Take Wikipedia. On its main COVID-19 page – a page which cannot be edited by mere mortals as it is “protected to prevent vandalism” – it states the following in the second paragraph:
Of those people who develop noticeable symptoms, most (81%) develop mild to moderate symptoms (up to mild pneumonia), while 14% develop severe symptoms (dyspnea, hypoxia, or more than 50% lung involvement on imaging), and 5% suffer critical symptoms (respiratory failure, shock, or multiorgan dysfunction).
This is claiming that almost a fifth of symptomatic COVID-19 infections are severe, and 1 in 20 are critical. If these are the statistics that people are reading then no wonder they’re scared.
Wikipedia is many people’s first port of call when looking up a subject, and often comes out near the top of internet searches. So the fact that it grossly exaggerates the seriousness of COVID-19 should be concerning. Even more concerning is why it does so.
Where did Wikipedia get its stats from? Alarmingly, the reference is to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC). In its latest clinical guidance, in a section headed “Illness Severity”, the U.S. federal health agency states:
A large cohort that included more than 44,000 people with COVID-19 from China, showed that illness severity can range from mild to critical:
– Mild to moderate (mild symptoms up to mild pneumonia): 81%
– Severe (dyspnea, hypoxia, or more than 50% lung involvement on imaging): 14%
– Critical (respiratory failure, shock, or multiorgan system dysfunction): 5%
In this study, all deaths occurred among patients with critical illness, and the overall case fatality ratio (CFR) was 2.3%.
These statistics come straight from an early study on the first 44,000 Covid patients in China, published on February 24th 2020. The study does not mention hospital admissions and it appears that all of these cases were in fact hospital patients. At any rate, the figures suggest a sample heavily skewed towards serious illness.
A more accurate estimate of severity comes from the ONS. In the December peak, the ONS estimated around 2% of the population of England were infected with COVID-19 and around 0.04% of the population were being admitted to hospital each week with the virus. This means about 2% of infections were leading to hospital admission, or 1% if we allow for the estimated half of serious infections caught in hospital. This is about 20 times lower than the nearly 20% serious infections in the Chinese study.
Why is the CDC still using this early study as its main source of statistics on the severity of COVID-19 when we’ve found out so much more about the illness since February 2020? Why is Wikipedia featuring these figures at the top of its COVID-19 page? Don’t they realise how misleading and unnecessarily frightening they are?
The CDC has form in sticking with out-of-date and misleading data. Immediately above those severity figures, for instance, it has this to say about asymptomatic infection: “The proportion of SARS-CoV-2 transmission due to asymptomatic or presymptomatic infection compared with symptomatic infection is not entirely clear; however, recent studies do suggest that people who are not showing symptoms may transmit the virus.” These “recent studies” are from February 2020, March 2020 and a Chinese modelling study from May 2020. None of the more recent studies showing that, in common with other similar viruses, asymptomatic spread is not a major driver of transmission are cited.
Similarly, on its “Planning Scenarios” page the CDC states that its best current estimate is that asymptomatic infections are 75% as infectious as symptomatic, which is epidemiologically unheard of. It also states its assumption is of “no pre-existing immunity before the pandemic began in 2019. It is assumed that all members of the U.S. population were susceptible to infection prior to the pandemic”. This is despite the growing evidence of T cell cross-immunity from other coronaviruses, including some varieties of the common cold.
If these are the assumptions that inform the CDC’s public health advice and modelling, no wonder it’s so often useless.
Here, on the other hand, is a proper analysis of the evidence. John P. A. Ioannidis, Stanford Professor of Medicine and Epidemiology, has just published a new review of the global infection fatality rate (IFR) of COVID-19. No, it’s not 2.3%.
Professor Ioannidis estimates the global average IFR to be around 0.15%, over 15 times lower than the Chinese figures quoted by the CDC. He stresses, however, that there are large differences between regions. The IFR in Europe and the Americas is around 0.3%-0.4%, whereas in Africa and Asia it’s about 0.05%. There are also wide differences between countries within regions, especially in Europe.
The differences, he suggests, are driven by “population age-structure, nursing home populations, effective sheltering of vulnerable people, medical care, use of effective (e.g. dexamethasone) or detrimental (e.g. [late treatment] hydroxychloroquine) treatments, host genetics, viral genetics and other factors”.
When U.S. Government agencies and “protected” pages on Wikipedia are the ones spreading falsehoods, you know that the battle against “misinformation” is a lost cause. You also remember why truth is advanced by freedom of speech, not by the dead hand of censorship.
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.
Because wikipedia is a propaganda mouthpiece run by the far left.
And invaluable for the armies of MSM “fact checkers”!
“run by the far left.”
Oh FFS – you don’t have to match Covid idiocy to prove your virility.
I have enough trouble combatting myths about this virus without having to explain away simplistic dumb comments from supposed sceptics that sound as if they’re amunition straight out of 77th Brigade.
It’s not run by the far left, but their sticky social justice warrrior fingers are all over it.
Even one of the founders agrees:
https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/
And he’s setting up another neutral encyclopaedia:
https://encyclosphere.org
When there’s an entry about a particular historical event which says that the reason for brutality was “toxic masculinity” and the “white patriarchy” you know its information is not neutral or reliable.
Taken seriously, this shit-show is not an extension of the masturbatory political fantasies of those still totally mired in simplistic right/left definitions of the universe.
That should be patently obvious, given its origins in over-arching neoliberal right wing governance and its endorsement by the ‘left’ barmy army.
Do try to keep up.
Looks like that’s upset at least one masturbator
I’m not sure what the right word is to describe the political direction of Wikipedia, or the large majority of those who write and edit the articles, at least the ones that could be given a political slant. Certainly not conservative. Certainly far from politically neutral. I don’t much like shorthand labels, but “SJW” or “Woke” are probably a reasonable description of the overall tone, and there seems to be a strong correlation between those strands of thinking and adherence to the covid narrative.
It’s run by zealots that’s for sure, and Jimmy Wales used tto be on the board of the Guardian (I don’t think he still is)
That became obvious when they started deleting “low carbers” especially the estimable Malcolm Kendrick.
Some one I know tried to edit their low carb diet section adding some studies of the diet in diabetics. Her edits were removed and she was banned from further editing.
Someone else I know corrected a minor error in the descri[tion of a vintage bus,for God’s sake. His edit was also immediately removed and the wrong information reinstated. I don’t see how that can be remotely considered political. Just control freakery
Neo-Liberals larping as Socialists
Just because its on Wikipedia doesn’t automatically mean that it’s true.
Which obviously this piece is not.
1st Rule of Internet Fight Club:
DO NOT USE WIKIPEDIA AS A RELIABLE SOURCE OF INFORMATION
2nd Rule of Internet Fight Club:
DO NOT USE WIKIPEDIA AS A RELIABLE SOURCE OF INFORMATION
3rd Rule of Internet Fight Club:
SEE RULES 1 and 2
…me, I stopped regarding Wikipedia as trustworthy back around 2005 when, researching the present whereabouts of one of my less salubrious family members (long story), it informed me that Cambodia, in which country said family member was holed up, was a small canton in Switzerland.
Maybe all this censoreship, fake news and lockdowns are indeed to convert the UK into a bio security state. Maybe they are scared of China as it seems to be taking full advantage of technology in controlling its population in a way that would be undemocratic in Europe so to get people to change into the new normal a pandemic is the ideal way. Maybe, a “bio security state” is more technologically powerful and the west doesn’t want China getting too powerful and having all the fun by itself. So in a sense, it could be just like the cold war all over again except this time with technology.
I don’t think so. You don’t fight a totalitarian state that controls everything its citizens do by copying it.
Plus, Boris, along with Merkel, Macron, and 21 other world leaders, has just announced a new international treaty to fight future pandemics, under the auspices of the WHO, which itself is very much under the unofficial control of the CCP.
‘You don’t fight a totalitarian state that controls everything its citizens do by copying it.’
Hitler and Stalin did and by adopting ‘war economies’ so did Britain and the USA to a lesser degree.
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/tucker-carlson-covid-internment-camps-coming-country-near-you
Tucker: Canada sending COVID positive citizens to ‘internment’ facilities
“On Monday, [Canada’s] prime minister, Justin Trudeau, outlined his government’s new corona regulations. Canadians hoping to return to their country must be tested before and after takeoff, he said, adding: “If your test results come back positive, you’ll need to immediately quarantine in designated government facilities. This is not optional.”
“Designated government facilities.” When this happens in other countries, and it does, we call those internment camps. Because this is Canada we’re talking about, a place we assume is passive and polite and Anglo to the point of parody, no one thinks to use that term. In fact, no one seems to think about it at all.
Back in November, Justin Trudeau admitted what’s going on. It’s not about stopping the coronavirus and saving lives. No. This pandemic, he said, is an opportunity to permanently change Western civilization:
TRUDEAU: “This pandemic has provided an opportunity for a reset. This is our chance to accelerate our pre-pandemic efforts to reimagine economic systems that actual address global challenges like extreme poverty, inequality, and climate change.”
We don’t want to give Justin Trudeau too much credit. He may be sinister, but he’s not smart. He didn’t think that phrase up. He took it from his role models in this country. At a forum hosted by the World Economic Forum in mid-November, John Kerry — our new climate czar — laid it out.
“Yes, it [the Great Reset] will happen,” Kerry said, “and I think it will happen with greater speed and with greater intensity than a lot of people might imagine. In effect, the citizens of the United States have just done a Great Reset. We’ve done a Great Reset. And it was a record level of voting. We’re at the dawn of an extremely exciting time.” “
Sorry. But as a regular lurker on this wonderful site, my flabber is gasted at the statement/suggestion that wiki is a reliable source and first port of call for “facts”
What next? The BBC is an unbiased source for global warming news? or any news?
Gimme a break!
Old news:
https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/
I used to donate to Wikipedia for several years, when I thought it provided a useful service. Not any more. Not more TV licence either. Vote with your wallet.
I might trust Wiki to tell me which bus I need to get to Muswell Hill but not much more.
I don’t even trust the BBC to tell me about the weather anymore since it has managed to politicise that now (eg predicting rain to discourage outdoor gatherings).
The CDC has become highly political. Its advice can no longer be trusted.
A thousand of its employees signed a letter last year urging the CDC director to declare racism as a health emergency, and a greater threat than CV19.
It’s another woke organisation.
Wikipedia has also been taken over by woke social justice warriors.
Woke is everywhere, there are several pages of it in this report about archaeology
I still preferred the pre streaming internet when it was 24/7 conspiracy theories and photoshops of celebrity heads onto p0rn stars