Death rates from Covid are lower than ever, according to an analysis by Professor Carl Heneghan and Dr Jason Oke carried out for the Mail on Sunday. The IFR is now ~0.0333%, similar to seasonal influenza.
Experts say there is little need to fear a recent surge in cases as fewer than one in 3,000 infected people now dies from coronavirus – with the rate even lower for the vaccinated.
The analysis of official data by Oxford University shows the ‘infection fatality rate’ has dropped about 30-fold since the pandemic began due to a combination of vaccine protection and naturally acquired infection.
Professor Carl Heneghan of Oxford’s Centre for Evidence Based Medicine, who carried out the analysis with statistician Jason Oke, said: “There have been an astonishing number of Covid infections so far this year, but deaths have come down.
“Now we are looking at an infection fatality rate for Covid of around one in 3,000 which is comparable with seasonal influenza. That’s why the Government is right not to be concerned and has come to the conclusion that there is no need for restrictions.”
Worth reading in full.
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.
Wasn’t this what was predicted from the first analysis of the Diamond Princess data?
That is disinformation. The Diamond Princess is a conspiracy theory.
Report immediately to the Disobedience Government Board for reprogramming.
Now?
That assessment was made by a number of credible people and the WHO late in 2020.
Important point here: As a so-called COVID is one which happens within a certain time after a positive PCR test, the actual IFR will be even lower as an unknown amount of so-called COVID deaths weren’t caused by COVID.
COVID death ^^ is one
Also there will be lots of covid infections that were never picked up by PCR, driving the IFR lower still
Never mind, I mixed up my CFR and IFR!
Anyone good at maths? If the mortality rate for “covid” is one in 3,000 (or one in two million for children) and the mortality rate for the “vaccines” one in 5,000 (so far), how effective would the “vaccines” need to be to justify taking them (or for that matter to justify taking them three or four times a year for years)? Factor in also the serious injury rate for the “vaccines” (3%) and” covid”.
Let vd be the vaccine death rate, vs the vaccine save rate and cd the COVID death rate. Vaccination would be justified if, from a group with x members, the number of survivors with vaccination would be greater than the number of surviors without vaccination. This would mean
(1 – vd) * vs * x > (1 – cd) * x
[if vaccine death rate is vd, vaccine surival rate is (1 – vd)]
this can be tranformed into
vs > (1 – cd) / (1 – vd)
For cd = 1 / 3000 and vd = 1 / 5000, the solution would be vs > 0.9999, ie vaccination would need to be more than 99.99% effective to be a net win. For the other two scenarios, there’s no way to achieve a net win.
NB: I hope this is correct. OTOH, I made at least one stupid mistake on the way to this and would be absolutely unsurpised if there were more.
And, of course, a common cold (coronavirus) predominantly endangers the very young and very old, unlike influenza; the whole country’s health and prosperity at risk as a consequence of the incompetence of a few ninnies regarding a common cold virus (identified as such by a coronavirus expert in China 06 Feb 2020).
I am still waiting for the indictment of the ninny responsible for the hospital clearances March 2020, thousands killed.
https://www.amnesty.org.uk/files/2020-10/Care%20Homes%20Report.pdf
Just for that alone, Bunter must go……
Individual responsibility? That will never do. The purpose of the official inquiry, if it is ever held, is to clearly state that no individual is to be blamed, it was a systemic failure and lessons will be learned.
Information made available 06 Feb 2020 (freely available online 12 Feb 2020) from one of the world’s leading coronavirus experts in China:
‘…this is actually not as severe a disease as is being suggested. The fatality rate is probably only 0.8%-1%. There’s a vast underreporting of cases in China. Compared to Sars and Mers we are talking about a coronavirus that has a mortality rate of 8 to 10 times less deadly to Sars to Mers. So a correct comparison is not Sars or Mers but a severe cold. Basically this is a severe form of the cold.’
‘Your colleague at HK university estimated that the size of the infected population on Jan 25th was 75K with a doubling time of 6.4 days. So by feb first we would have 150k infected. How accurate do you think these models are and how accurate have they been in the past?
Those figures did not take into account restriction on travel, quarantine etc… These reports are likely on the high side. This is not taking into account social distancing. Historically these models have not been all that accurate.’
‘The evidence is to look at the common cold – it’s always during winter. So the natural environment will not be favourable in Asia in about May.’
‘People talk about the vaccine and this is the big problem that people get from movies. Where in the movie they come out with a vaccine and then three days later it’s all over the world and everybody is saved. In reality this does not happen because for a vaccine you need to go through clinical trials – is it safe and will it work. The last thing you want to do is rush a vaccine too early.’
‘The data coming out of China seems to indicate that it’s those with the co-morbidity are most at risk. For the seasonal influenza that’s also what we find. It’s the people with the co-morbidity that have the increase mortality rate.’
‘At this stage it’s a really bad cold which can cause problems in people. People are talking about the “lethal virus” but seasonal influenza can cause deaths in elderly but we don’t call that “the lethal influenza”
There was a lot that he didn’t get right, understandably;
‘Are we making assumption with very little data and very early data?
That’s all the data we have to work with. When you are dealing with an epidemic at the early stages – there’s such a variable. But now for political reason people are far more aware of the virus so it won’t be as epidemic as it was early on. There’s far more awareness and controlled environment and changes in social behaviour.’
Prof John Nicholls Univ. of Hong King 06 Feb 2020
But enough that he did get right to ask serious questions about the (in)competence of those leading and organising public healthcare in this country.
This person estimates 75,000 cases in Wuhan on January 25, 2020. This presumably is based on the assumption that the virus began to spread on or around Dec. 31, 2019.
More people are starting to acknowledge that the virus was really spreading by some time in September 2019. So what would the IFR and number of infected be if the virus began to spread four months before this?