The Significance Of The COVID-19 Infection Fatality Ratio Data
The infection fatality ratio concerns the number of people who die from a disease from among everyone who has that particular disease. When we consider this number in relationship to the SARS CoV 2 we're able to get a clear picture concerning the impact of COVID-19 on our society.
In our community, local healthcare professionals have made the claim the coronavirus is 10 times more lethal than the seasonal flu. Frankly that's a bunch of baloney.
The CDC publishes caronavirus IFR data on their website and the info there tells a much different story.
There are four categories of IFR data on the site. Group one is people from 0 to 19 years old,
group 2 is 20 to 49,
group 3 is 50 to 69,
group 4 is 70 years and older.
When we look in the first category it's clear the coronavirus is not 10 times as lethal as the seasonal flu. If you've ever examined seasonal flu infection fatality ratio data you know a number of children die each year from the flu – at a rate much higher than from the SARS CoV 2.
So, the coronavirus IFR for the 0 to 19-year-old demographic shows us there is a 0.00003 possibility of death from among all those who are infected in that particular age group. That's three 100,000s. That's a 99.997% survival rate. And remember, this pertains only to those who have been infected. In other words, for the 0 to 19-year-old demographic at large, the possibility of death from the SARS COV-2 is virtually zero.
So, if you are between 0 to 19 years of age, you have no reason whatsoever to be concerned about the SARS COV 2. People in that age group should be left alone to live their lives normally without masking, without any restrictions on movement - except perhaps their interaction with the last demographic category in this IFR data: We'll talk about in a minute.
Now, if you are between 20 and 49 years of age and you are among those infected by the coronavirus you have a 0.0002 possibility of death. That is one in 5000. That is 0.02%. And that, of course, is a 99.98% survival rate. Once again, let me remind you, I'm talking about people who actually have contracted the virus. And again, if you look at that entire demographic, all the people in the United States between 20 and 49 years of age, they have virtually no chance of dying from the COVID-19. Once again, these people should be allowed to go about their business without restriction.
The third category is the 50 to 69-year-olds. In this group, those who contract the coronavirus have a 0.005 possibility of death. That's one in 200 or 0.5%. At this point we begin to see numbers that are equal to and exceeding the infection fatality ratio for the seasonal flu. Yet, I find it difficult to accept these numbers at face value. As I've already mentioned, the death count has been padded – there's plenty of evidence it's taking place. Moreover, the number of those infected is almost certainly undercounted. In any case, the 50 to 69-year-old folks have a 99.5% survival rate if infected. And again, the population at large in that age group really has nothing to worry about. These folks should be allowed to decide for themselves how much interaction with others they feel comfortable with - as should we all.
The last group is 70+ years of age. These folks have a 0.054 possibility of death if infected. That's 27/500s. That's equal to 5.4% fatality rate. If that's accurate, it's significantly higher than the seasonal flu. Even so, it's equivalent to a 94.6% survival rate. And, I know I keep saying this, but this pertains only to those who have been infected. In other words, the 70+ years of age population at large isn't looking at these kinds of numbers.
I would suggest that even the numbers provided by the CDC are inflated. It's been well documented the death count has been padded in a number of locations around the country.
Not only that, the CDC also tells us about prevalence of comorbidities among those who have been listed as dying from the COVID-19; the vast majority may have died from something else. In other words, 94% of those categorized as COVID-19 deaths had an average of 2.6 comorbidities. They were obese, they had diabetes, they had heart disease, asthma and so on. The truth is, most of the people who have been listed as dying from the coronavirus were already knocking on death's door.
Worldwide, the average age of those who have died from the COVID-19 exceeds the anticipated life expectancy.
For instance, the median age of Covid-19 deaths in:
Australia 82 years
Austria 80+ years
Brazil 70 years
Canada 86 years
England 80+ years
France 84 years
Germany 82 years
Italy 82 years
Spain 82 years
Sweden 84 years
Switzerland 84 years
USA 78 years
So, these are folks who were at the end of their life expectancy.
Now, we have known from the beginning of this "pandemic" that the elderly and infirm are the ones who are vulnerable. They are the ones that should have been protected. If there was going to be any kind of "lock-down" it should have been the nursing homes. More accurately, the elderly and infirm should have been given adequate information concerning the risk so they could have made their own decisions about how they would limit their interaction with others.
In any case, most of the population runs very little risk of death due to the coronavirus.
There is additional data suggesting the infection fatality rate is lower than what the CDC believes - across-the-board.
An October 8, 2020 article in the offGuardian suggests that the WHO, the World Health Organization not the band, has confirmed COVID-19 is no more dangerous than the seasonal flu. To quote the article, "Doctor Michael Ryan, the WHO's head of emergencies revealed that they believe roughly 10% of the world has been infected with SARS COV 2."
The article goes on to point out that in a worldwide population of 7.8 billion, a 10% infection ratio would be 780 million cases. With 1,061,359 deaths attributed to the COVID-19, the infection fatality ratio would be somewhere around 0.14%. That's the seasonal flu. I have to think even this number is high. Several studies have shown that the number of people infected by the SARS COV 2 is drastically undercounted. If that is the case then the 10% number is too low. If so, the infection fatality ratio would be even lower. Anecdotal evidence out of Sweden suggests this is so. Sebastian Rushworth, is an emergency room doctor in Stockholm Sweden. According to an article on his website dated August 4, 2020 the COVID related visits to the emergency room dwindled to nothing by mid-summer. He goes on to say that of the 6000 people who died of-or-with COVID-19 in Sweden, 70% of those were over 80 years of age. He makes the point that, "quite a few of those 6000 would have died this year anyway. That makes COVID a mere blip in terms of its effect on mortality."
Continuing the quote from his article, "If we've reached a point where there is hardly any active infection going on anymore in Sweden in spite of the fact that there is barely any social distancing happening, that means at least 50% of the population has been infected already and have developed immunity, which is 5 million people. ...If only 6000 are dead out of 5 million infected that works out to a case fatality rate of 0.12%, roughly the same as regular old influenza, which no one is the least bit frightened of, and which we don't shut down our societies for."
So, Doctor Rushworth, on the front lines in Stockholm Sweden, believes the infection fatality ratio is 0.12%. Now, in the article he says "case fatality rate" but the way he is using it is actually the infection fatality ratio - sometimes called infection fatality rate. In any case, he believes the SARS COV 2 is no worse than the seasonal flu.
Indeed, according to the CDC, the mortality rate from the seasonal flu has been an average of 0.13 percent since 2010.
There's two things I want to emphasize. First, most people have nothing to worry about when it comes to the COVID-19. In addition to the CDC data we reviewed, the WHO affirms a very low infection fatality ratio. Doctor Rushworth in Stockholm also suggests the infection fatality ratio for the coronavirus is on par with the seasonal flu. In short, there was no reason for any kind of lockdown. There was no reason and continues to be no reason for any kind of social distancing. There is no public health purpose in mandating the behavior of the population. The only caveat would be a need to protect the aged and infirm. Other information I've read about the Swedish experience suggests they would have had a lower death rate had they taken more care to protect their elderly and infirm citizens. Apparently, the nursing homes in Sweden are very large, a large number of residents. And when the virus made its way to these nursing homes, it had a dramatic impact on the mortality numbers related to the coronavirus.
The other thing I want to mention is the fact that most of the people who have died from the COVID-19 are at the end of life anyway. I know this sounds callous, but the truth is, the majority of the people who have died from or with the COVID-19 where "scheduled" to die soon anyway. People don't like to hear that, and I am not saying we should be without compassion for those who die; but from a standpoint of statistics, a certain number of people die every year. And most people who die in any given year are elderly - and, or infirm. The news media would have you believe everybody and anybody is at risk from SARS COV 2. That simply isn't true. Even the CDC numbers tell us that much. In short, there is no reason for the hysteria. There is no reason for the closure of "nonessential businesses." There is no reason for the social distancing. Masking, which doesn't have any impact on the spread of disease causing viruses anyway, would have no place in our society even if it was effective. Schools should not have closed. Restaurants, movie theaters, gyms, beauty salons, taverns and so on should never have closed. They should all reopen immediately with full capacity.
The tyrannical measures taken by state and local governments have nothing to do with public health but are about control. This "crisis" - a crisis not wasted by those on the Left - has served to reveal the true intellectual moorings of state and local leadership. Here in Idaho, what many people suspected has been proven to be true. Governor Little is not conservative but is a Leftist. His insistence that the lock-down measures he took were enacted reluctantly is a bunch of baloney. Like all Leftists, Governor Chicken Little relished the opportunity to take unilateral control and so has refused to end the "extreme emergency" declaration.
Part of the reason he has failed to do so is because it would shut off the flow of federal dollars to the state. His reluctance is further evidence of his leftist character.
So, let's stop the madness. People need to rise up and demand a return to normalcy. People need to say enough is enough. No more lock-downs. No more social distancing. No more closure of businesses. It's time to end the fauxdemic.
Entire Site Copyright © 2022 By David Eric Williams