dan....@gmail.com schrieb am Sonntag, 28. November 2021 um 00:18:31 UTC+1:
> On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 4:44:42 PM UTC-5, MINe109 wrote:
> > On 11/27/21 11:57 AM, Marc S wrote:
> > > Marc S schrieb am Samstag, 27. November 2021 um 18:26:52 UTC+1:
> > >
> > >> Further food for thought: I linked Dan a study of the public
> > >> ministry of health of sweden which puts the IFR at 0,6%. Sweden
> > >> never implemented Lockdowns, just like Ioannidis advised. Yet the
> > >> IFR in the US was higher than in Sweden. So this is sort of an
> > >> argument that Lockdowns didn'T really do much about it.
> > >
> > > * I am basing this comparison on Dan's info (of which I
> > > don't know how true it is) that the IFR is over 1 in the US.
> >
> > IFR is a moving target. Lockdowns were meant primarily to
> > avoid overwhelming the health system no matter how much
> > it was hoped they would prevent spread.
> One should not expect most people to
> understand such an obvious concept.
> Every action or measure taken that
> incoveniences someone must be
> the result of some abominable
> conspiracy. ;-)
>
> dk

Dan I really assumed you were capable of thinking a bit more logically. I just countered both arguments.

If you believe the IFR to be a "moving target", why do you even tell me about the IFR being >1%? So the IFR can be anything between 0-100%?

Why do you think that Ioannidis', Bhattachary or I believe in a "conspiracy"? I don't believe anyone intentionally conspired, but that people are actually to stupid to do their own research and fall for Horror-numbers without actually udnerstanding how this numbers came to be.

People are misinformed and stupid out of intellectual and psycholgical reasons, not because any conspiracy. And that is why they stick to their line (media, goverment etc). For example: (almost) Never having any scientists on TV that oppose those Horror-Numbers, only scientists that tell you about how dangerous COVID is.

At least servustv invited Ioannidis a few months ago ;)

dan....@gmail.com schrieb am Sonntag, 28. November 2021 um 00:20:22 UTC+1:
> On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 12:57:41 PM UTC-5, Marc S wrote:
> >
> > * I am basing this comparison on Dan's info (of
> > which I don't know how true it is) that the IFR is
> > over 1 in the US.
> The numbers I quoted come from well known
> public tracking sites (CNN, RCP, Worldometers,
> Johns Hopkins) and are pretty consistent with
> one another. I did not do any "research".
>
> dk

Well I quoted the WHO. Did the WHO according to you choose an imbecile scientist to conduct research on IFR? And if the criticism on his study for the WHO is correct, why does the WHO not take down his study? Why does Ioannidis not step back from his results? I believe Ioannidis to have very good reasons, for thinking that the criticism of his studies are not correct.

That you actually quote CNN... my dear friend... CNN is full of shit ;) Do you believe CNN is a politically unbiased entity? They will follow their line. You have to look into the studies... and compare them... and make your own conclusions.

dan....@gmail.com schrieb am Sonntag, 28. November 2021 um 00:18:31 UTC+1:
> On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 4:44:42 PM UTC-5, MINe109 wrote:
> > On 11/27/21 11:57 AM, Marc S wrote:
> > > Marc S schrieb am Samstag, 27. November 2021 um 18:26:52 UTC+1:
> > >
> > >> Further food for thought: I linked Dan a study of the public
> > >> ministry of health of sweden which puts the IFR at 0,6%. Sweden
> > >> never implemented Lockdowns, just like Ioannidis advised. Yet the
> > >> IFR in the US was higher than in Sweden. So this is sort of an
> > >> argument that Lockdowns didn'T really do much about it.
> > >
> > > * I am basing this comparison on Dan's info (of which I
> > > don't know how true it is) that the IFR is over 1 in the US.
> >
> > IFR is a moving target. Lockdowns were meant primarily to
> > avoid overwhelming the health system no matter how much
> > it was hoped they would prevent spread.
> One should not expect most people to
> understand such an obvious concept.
> Every action or measure taken that
> incoveniences someone must be
> the result of some abominable
> conspiracy. ;-)
>
> dk

Ofc the IFR depends on many factors ("moving target"), but I believe the IFR that the WHO-study mentions is more close to the true IFR than the IFR of any other study, based on methodolgy.

If you believe otherwise, that is okay. But it is no proof that you are correct in your assumptions.

dan....@gmail.com schrieb am Sonntag, 28. November 2021 um 04:31:32 UTC+1:

> According to
> https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries
> the US has 147,059 cases per 1M and 2,395
> deaths per 1M. Thus the calculated mortality
> is 1.6285%, which I rounded up to 1.63%.
>

So, "why" do you choose to "believe" (because you have not made any concrete argument, just like Herman and MINe) this number (which states the IFR in the US) to be more reliable than the Number the WHO provides (which states the IFR based on global data). You can ofc compile all the data of that webpage and propose a new global IFR, so we could actually compare the IFR to the IFR of WHO.

You gave no arguments of "why" you think, this data is to be more reliable than the data of the WHO. You just chose to believe this to be more correct, without giving me specific arguments.

It may have to do with that you are psychologically predetermined of thinking that COVID is super dangerous, so you choose to believe in the horrornumbers. No arguments from your side, why Ioannidis is wrong.

> This is consistent with RCP's COVID tracker:
> https://www.realclearpolitics.com/coronavirus/
>
> Had you written 98% instead of 99% I would
> have let it pass. Wondering where do you get
> your data. Please provide sources.

Well it is not only me (by quoting Ioannidis) that says the survivability to be at 99%... but also Ioannidis and the public ministry of health in sweden.

Study of Sweden: https://www.folkhalsomyndigheten.se/contentassets/53c0dc391be54f5d959ead9131edb771/infection-fatality-rate-covid-19-stockholm-technical-report.pdf

Go to page 17 and read "IFR for Age 0-69 = 0,09%"
>
> 1.6% mortality is at least 8x higher than flu.
>
> dk

According to your data, but not according to the data I posted. Why are you even asking about my data? If you read anything I did write, I always linked hte studies that supported my arguments.
For example: https://www.who.int/bulletin/online_first/BLT.20.265892.pdf

Are you accusing the WHO of providing misinformation and that you know better than the WHO because of "realclearplitics and worldometers"? Maybe you should write the WHO that they released a false study and should take it down by linking them "realclearpolitics and worldometers", instead of makign a scientific argument on basis of the studies.

What I want to show you here is: You are behaving a bit like a fascist. You only believe your source of information to be true (without actually understanding the specifics) and then want to force your "opinion" (it is just an opinion that oyu have) on others who think differently based on other sources of information.

Why your soruce of information is supposed to be better than my source of information still remains a mystery to me.

But you can believe this ofc, but you should make yourself clear that it is only a belief ;) Which is exactly why you have no right to force your mass-vaccination-poilcy on others. That would be fascist.

On Sunday, 28 November 2021 at 12:46:08 UTC, Marc S wrote:
> What I want to show you here is: You are behaving a bit like a fascist. You only believe your source of information to be true (without actually understanding the specifics) and then want to force your "opinion" (it is just an opinion that oyu have) on others who think differently based on other sources of information.

This is a pretty textbook example of how to construct a tedious, boring and pointless post.
1. Call anybody that doesn't agree with you a fascist, an idiot or anything stupid or socially unacceptable. And make sure you add that "they don't understand'....
2. Nit-pick incessantly over bits of data without putting them in the context of an overall vision. So all you get is "I say this and you say this and I'm right and you're wrong" again and again and again and again.
3. Whatever anyone says that you don't agree with, ask them to prove it, and if you don't like the proof, offer an alternative piece of data that shows something else.
4. Micro-analyse phrases pulled out of context ad infinitum and ad nauseam.
5. Call anything you don't agree with "an opinion".

I'm already too bored to continue so I'll stop there. Fortunately I don't have to feed my ego with endless posts whose sole purpose seems to be to show I'm right and others are wrong. What a hell to live in........

Andy Evans schrieb am Sonntag, 28. November 2021 um 14:00:44 UTC+1:
> On Sunday, 28 November 2021 at 12:46:08 UTC, Marc S wrote:
> > What I want to show you here is: You are behaving a bit like a fascist. You only believe your source of information to be true (without actually understanding the specifics) and then want to force your "opinion" (it is just an opinion that oyu have) on others who think differently based on other sources of information.
> This is a pretty textbook example of how to construct a tedious, boring and pointless post.
> 1. Call anybody that doesn't agree with you a fascist, an idiot or anything stupid or socially unacceptable. And make sure you add that "they don't understand'....

Instead of comprehending my thought of argumentation, you just spout nonsense.

I provided an argument for why Dan's "way" would be fascist: Forcing "opinions" on others for which one has no "proof" is a fascist move in it's core.

Up until now he did not negate the results of WHO's study using logical arguments. All he did was show me studies that he believes in, without giving me a sound argument, why his studies are supposed to be more reliable thn mine.

Why is it okay for Dan to believe in his study and thus wanting to force mass vaccination on everyone; but not okay for me to believe in the WHO study and negate the claim that we should mass vaccinate everyone?

Only Dan is allowed to be correct or what? And I am not? Based on what? Based on Beliefs?

> 2. Nit-pick incessantly over bits of data without putting them in the context of an overall vision. So all you get is "I say this and you say this and I'm right and you're wrong" again and again and again and again.

I don't know how much you understand science, but ofc you have to be nit picky in regards to data....

You have the brain of a monkey or sth it seems. All I want to show is, that Dan and Herman and MINe are not right in forcing their opinion on others without providing scientific arguments. (Say: Why they believe study x to be better than study y)

> 3. Whatever anyone says that you don't agree with, ask them to prove it, and if you don't like the proof, offer an alternative piece of data that shows something else.

Well, obviously people don't agree with Ioannidis and Malone. That is the point of origin of this debate.

According to a WHO study the IFR lies at 0,2%. I ask for proof why the WHO study is wrong. Pointing to other studies that have a higher IFR without giving me arguments on why they are supposed to be taken more seriously, is no proof.

They can believe that the IFR is way higher than the WHO says, I don't care, but they can't force their opiunion (mass vaccinaion) on others. It is very simple hnestly.

> 4. Micro-analyse phrases pulled out of context ad infinitum and ad nauseam.

?

> 5. Call anything you don't agree with "an opinion".

It is not that I call "everything" i don't agree with "an opinion". But believing in one study over the other without giving me crucial scientific arguments on why one would do this, just amounts to be an "opinion". According to Dan's opinion I should take the IFR of worldometers more seriously than the IFR of WHO. Well I am of different opinion.

My point is: Everyone is allowed to have an opinion, but one can'T force his opinion (in this matter) on others. That would be fascist.
>
> I'm already too bored to continue so I'll stop there. Fortunately I don't have to feed my ego with endless posts whose sole purpose seems to be to show I'm right and others are wrong. What a hell to live in........

My friend if you think I want to feed my ego with this you are surely mistaking, all I want to do is spread vital information and show that is fascist to force mass vaccination on others.

This whole thread showed me, that ill-informed people who want to force mass vaccination on others are incapable of making good arguments for their position. They just believe that their source of information is true and others are wrong. And then opt for a fascist move.

Wake up people... you can't be that stupid...

On Sunday, November 28, 2021 at 2:36:12 PM UTC+1, Marc S wrote:
>
>
> Wake up people... you can't be that stupid...

Oh, yes we can.
Let's leave it that, and we'll give you a nice goodbye...

Before leaving I thought I should leave this here:

For anyone that is interested in hearing contrasting thoughts to what seems to be popular opinion on here (or even in the world):

Talk with Ioannidis in english on servustv:
https://www.servustv.com/aktuelles/v/aa-2857yfjzd1w11/

Ioannidis talk on "COVID-19 epidemiology: risks, measures, and ending the pandemic":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_ehqHQOBO0

What Happened: Dr. Jay Bhattacharya on 19 Months of COVID:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zG7XZ2JXZqY

Marc S schrieb am Sonntag, 28. November 2021 um 16:56:10 UTC+1:
> Before leaving I thought I should leave this here:
>
> For anyone that is interested in hearing contrasting thoughts to what seems to be popular opinion on here (or even in the world):
>
> Talk with Ioannidis in english on servustv:
> https://www.servustv.com/aktuelles/v/aa-2857yfjzd1w11/
>
> Ioannidis talk on "COVID-19 epidemiology: risks, measures, and ending the pandemic":
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_ehqHQOBO0

*video starts shortly after the audio.
A quote of Prof. Manuel Schabus (who opened and uploaded the talk on yt) in the channel:

"Let me contribute to the discussion and the 2 most controversial points here. To my best knowledge Ivermectin has pretty weak evidence to date and there are no good randomized trials to suggest that it saves lives; to my understanding that is also what John tried to emphasize. Dexamethasone and tocilizumab have the strongest evidence for saving lives in COVID-19 so far.
I think John generally remains optimistic on vaccines, but of course agrees that we need to continue to collect data on duration of effectiveness and on frequency of harms. I think it is save to say that both of us clearly remain against mandatory vaccination. For healthy people below 40 or so, I think the difference in risks and benefits is very small, because both quantities are small. For children & adolescents the risks definitely outweigh the benefits! Check https://qcovid.org/ and see what e.g., the risk for hospitalization is for a 19
year old with asthma: 1:40.000 (!!!).
Let‘s collect that, and objectively (!) discuss and follow what we learn from it!"

>
> What Happened: Dr. Jay Bhattacharya on 19 Months of COVID:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zG7XZ2JXZqY

On 11/27/2021 10:31 PM, Dan Koren wrote:
> On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 10:17:00 PM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
>> On 11/26/2021 5:32 PM, Dan Koren wrote:
>>> On Friday, November 26, 2021 at 7:31:59 AM UTC-5, Marc S wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Basically every scientific study that stands in
>>>> contrast to public opinion is a pain in the ass:
>>>> Such as that the infection fatality rates are
>>>> super low for most of the population.
>>>
>>> As far as one can tell, the infection fatality
>>> rate for COVID is about 10x higher than for
>>> flu, and the numbers are consistent across
>>> many sources. One caveat is that flu deaths
>>> are probably under reported as they do not
>>> have to be reported in may countries.
>>>
>>> The average worldwide COVID fatality rate
>>> stands at 0.23%, while the US has a fatality
>>> rate of 1.63%. I don't quite understand why
>>> anyone would describe them as "super low".
>>> The worldwide mortality rate is probably
>>> understated because of incomplete and
>>> non-uniform reporting across countries.
>>>
>>> In the US, one person in 7 has contracted
>>> the disease, and one person in 417 died
>>> of it.
>>
>> And yet, IIRC, an under 65 person without
>> health issues has well over a 99% chance
>> of recovery from Covid. Is that wrong?
>
> Obviously, considering that the mortality
> rate normalized to the number of cases
> is 1.63% in the US according to publicly
> available data.
>
> According to
> https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries
> the US has 147,059 cases per 1M and 2,395
> deaths per 1M. Thus the calculated mortality
> is 1.6285%, which I rounded up to 1.63%.
>
> This is consistent with RCP's COVID tracker:
> https://www.realclearpolitics.com/coronavirus/
>
> Had you written 98% instead of 99% I would
> have let it pass. Wondering where do you get
> your data. Please provide sources.
>
> 1.6% mortality is at least 8x higher than flu.
>
> dk
>

Not obvious to me at this point, since your figures are not age/health specific whereas I specified under 65 and without a compromising condition. And Marc S, who I truly hate to be defending, specified "most of the population.

On 11/28/21 5:31 AM, Marc S wrote:
> Give me a concrete and logically sound argument on why Ioannidis is wrong. You seem not to be able to do this on your own, because you don't seem to know anthing about the specifics on how data was gathered and evaluated.

That's because there are questions about the specifics on how the data
was gathered and evaluated.

To continue, please be more specific as to what Ioannidis's argument is.

On 11/28/21 5:45 AM, Marc S wrote:
> MINe109 schrieb am Samstag, 27. November 2021 um 22:44:42 UTC+1:
>> IFR is a moving target. Lockdowns were meant primarily to avoid
>> overwhelming the health system no matter how much it was hoped
>> they would prevent spread.
>
> IFR is a moving target? So based on this statement of you, I can't
> believe either in the IFR of Ioannidis or the IFR mentioned by Dan,
> right?
It's a snapshot in time that depends on valid testing and accurate case
counts.

You can believe either figure was correct when derived.

An absolute figure is impossible but the closest thing to it can be
calculated when the pandemic is over.

On Sunday, November 28, 2021 at 12:34:21 PM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
> On 11/27/2021 10:31 PM, Dan Koren wrote:
> > On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 10:17:00 PM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
> >> On 11/26/2021 5:32 PM, Dan Koren wrote:
> >>> On Friday, November 26, 2021 at 7:31:59 AM UTC-5, Marc S wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Basically every scientific study that stands in
> >>>> contrast to public opinion is a pain in the ass:
> >>>> Such as that the infection fatality rates are
> >>>> super low for most of the population.
> >>>
> >>> As far as one can tell, the infection fatality
> >>> rate for COVID is about 10x higher than for
> >>> flu, and the numbers are consistent across
> >>> many sources. One caveat is that flu deaths
> >>> are probably under reported as they do not
> >>> have to be reported in may countries.
> >>>
> >>> The average worldwide COVID fatality rate
> >>> stands at 0.23%, while the US has a fatality
> >>> rate of 1.63%. I don't quite understand why
> >>> anyone would describe them as "super low".
> >>> The worldwide mortality rate is probably
> >>> understated because of incomplete and
> >>> non-uniform reporting across countries.
> >>>
> >>> In the US, one person in 7 has contracted
> >>> the disease, and one person in 417 died
> >>> of it.
> >>
> >> And yet, IIRC, an under 65 person without
> >> health issues has well over a 99% chance
> >> of recovery from Covid. Is that wrong?
> >
> > Obviously, considering that the mortality
> > rate normalized to the number of cases
> > is 1.63% in the US according to publicly
> > available data.
> >
> > According to
> > https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries
> > the US has 147,059 cases per 1M and 2,395
> > deaths per 1M. Thus the calculated mortality
> > is 1.6285%, which I rounded up to 1.63%.
> >
> > This is consistent with RCP's COVID tracker:
> > https://www.realclearpolitics.com/coronavirus/
> >
> > Had you written 98% instead of 99% I would
> > have let it pass. Wondering where do you get
> > your data. Please provide sources.
> >
> > 1.6% mortality is at least 8x higher than flu.
>
> Not obvious to me at this point, since your
> figures are not age/health specific whereas

I don't have time to split hairs, and it doesn't
matter anyway.

> I specified under 65 and without a compromising
> condition.

You did not provide any data -- only hand waving.
Can you explain how can "under 65 and without a
compromising condition" be quantified?

> And Marc S, who I truly hate to be defending,
> specified "most of the population.

Numbers please! As data analysts like to say,
"In God We Trust. Everyone else please bring
data".

dk

On Sunday, November 28, 2021 at 10:56:10 AM UTC-5, Marc S wrote:
> Before leaving I thought I should leave this here:
>
> For anyone that is interested in hearing contrasting
> thoughts to what seems to be popular opinion on
> here (or even in the world):

Viruses and diseases don't care about
"contrasting views", or even about any
views at all.

dk

On Sunday, November 28, 2021 at 8:36:12 AM UTC-5, Marc S wrote:
>
> Wake up people... you can't be that stupid...

Kettle insulting teapots again?

dk

On 11/28/21 9:34 AM, Frank Berger wrote:
> On 11/27/2021 10:31 PM, Dan Koren wrote:
>> On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 10:17:00 PM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
>>> On 11/26/2021 5:32 PM, Dan Koren wrote:
>>>> On Friday, November 26, 2021 at 7:31:59 AM UTC-5, Marc S wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Basically every scientific study that stands in
>>>>> contrast to public opinion is a pain in the ass:
>>>>> Such as that the infection fatality rates are
>>>>> super low for most of the population.
>>>>
>>>> As far as one can tell, the infection fatality
>>>> rate for COVID is about 10x higher than for
>>>> flu, and the numbers are consistent across
>>>> many sources. One caveat is that flu deaths
>>>> are probably under reported as they do not
>>>> have to be reported in may countries.
>>>>
>>>> The average worldwide COVID fatality rate
>>>> stands at 0.23%, while the US has a fatality
>>>> rate of 1.63%. I don't quite understand why
>>>> anyone would describe them as "super low".
>>>> The worldwide mortality rate is probably
>>>> understated because of incomplete and
>>>> non-uniform reporting across countries.
>>>>
>>>> In the US, one person in 7 has contracted
>>>> the disease, and one person in 417 died
>>>> of it.
>>>
>>> And yet, IIRC, an under 65 person without
>>> health issues has well over a 99% chance
>>> of recovery from Covid. Is that wrong?
>>
>> Obviously, considering that the mortality
>> rate normalized to the number of cases
>> is 1.63% in the US according to publicly
>> available data.
>>
>> According to
>> https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries
>> the US has 147,059 cases per 1M and 2,395
>> deaths per 1M. Thus the calculated mortality
>> is 1.6285%, which I rounded up to 1.63%.
>>
>> This is consistent with RCP's COVID tracker:
>> https://www.realclearpolitics.com/coronavirus/
>>
>> Had you written 98% instead of 99% I would
>> have let it pass. Wondering where do you get
>> your data. Please provide sources.
>>
>> 1.6% mortality is at least 8x higher than flu.
>>
>> dk
>>
>
> Not obvious to me at this point, since your figures are not age/health
> specific whereas I specified under 65 and without a compromising
> condition.  And Marc S, who I truly hate to be defending, specified
> "most of the population.

It seems likely that 1) the 'cases per 1M' figure is underestimated,
considering the number of mild cases never identified as the virus, and
2) that the 'deaths per 1M' figure may be high depending on how deaths
*with* COVID are evaluated I.e., is 'with COVID' the same as 'from COVID'?

I do not dispute the seriousness of the problem, having gotten both
Pfizer shots in Jan/Feb, only to have a case of the real thing in
September. But I do remember the words attributed to (among others)
Benjamin Disraeli: "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics." The
third of these has come in for much abuse in the last 18-20 months. It
is a pity that so few people have any real working knowledge of the subject.

Bob Harper

On Sunday, November 28, 2021 at 8:00:44 AM UTC-5, Andy Evans wrote:
> On Sunday, 28 November 2021 at 12:46:08 UTC, Marc S wrote:
> > What I want to show you here is: You are behaving
> > a bit like a fascist. You only believe your source of
> > information to be true (without actually understanding
> > the specifics) and then want to force your "opinion" (it
> > is just an opinion that oyu have) on others who think
> > differently based on other sources of information.
> This is a pretty textbook example of how to construct
> a tedious, boring and pointless post.
> 1. Call anybody that doesn't agree with you a fascist,
> an idiot or anything stupid or socially unacceptable.
> And make sure you add that "they don't understand'....
> 2. Nit-pick incessantly over bits of data without putting
> them in the context of an overall vision. So all you get
> is "I say this and you say this and I'm right and you're
> wrong" again and again and again and again.
> 3. Whatever anyone says that you don't agree with,
> ask them to prove it, and if you don't like the proof,
> offer an alternative piece of data that shows
> something else.
> 4. Micro-analyse phrases pulled out of context ad
> infinitum and ad nauseam.
> 5. Call anything you don't agree with "an opinion".

That is the whole point of German school
philosophy -- isn't it?

dk

On Sunday, November 28, 2021 at 7:46:08 AM UTC-5, Marc S wrote:
> dan....@gmail.com schrieb am Sonntag, 28. November 2021 um 04:31:32 UTC+1:
>
> > According to
> > https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries
> > the US has 147,059 cases per 1M and 2,395
> > deaths per 1M. Thus the calculated mortality
> > is 1.6285%, which I rounded up to 1.63%.
> >
> So, "why" do you choose to "believe"

I did not "choose to believe" anything.
Just quoted publicly available data
that appears to be very consistent
across different sources. Capisce?

> (because you have not made any concrete
> argument, just like Herman and MINe)

I merely computed ratios between
pairs of numbers. I did not make
arguments.

> this number (which states the IFR in the US)
> to be more reliable than the Number the WHO
> provides (which states the IFR based on global
> data).

IFR depends on many factors, some
of which differ across geographies
and populations. I live in the US and
"global data" is irrelevant to my risks
and to my health.

> You can ofc compile all the data of
> that webpage and propose a new
> global IFR, so we could actually
> compare the IFR to the IFR of WHO.

Completely pointless. WHO aggrgates
data reported by the governments of
various countries. They do not collect
data themselves in the field. As to the
accuracy of WHO's data, does anyone
really take at face value the number of
cases reported by WHO for China?

dk

On Sunday, November 28, 2021 at 7:46:08 AM UTC-5, Marc S wrote:
> dan....@gmail.com schrieb am Sonntag, 28. November 2021 um 04:31:32 UTC+1:
>
> > According to
> > https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries
> > the US has 147,059 cases per 1M and 2,395
> > deaths per 1M. Thus the calculated mortality
> > is 1.6285%, which I rounded up to 1.63%.
> >
> So, "why" do you choose to "believe" (because you have not made any concrete argument, just like Herman and MINe) this number (which states the IFR in the US) to be more reliable than the Number the WHO provides (which states the IFR based on global data). You can ofc compile all the data of that webpage and propose a new global IFR, so we could actually compare the IFR to the IFR of WHO.
>
> You gave no arguments of "why" you think, this data is to be more reliable than the data of the WHO. You just chose to believe this to be more correct, without giving me specific arguments.
>
> It may have to do with that you are psychologically predetermined of thinking that COVID is super dangerous, so you choose to believe in the horrornumbers. No arguments from your side, why Ioannidis is wrong.
> > This is consistent with RCP's COVID tracker:
> > https://www.realclearpolitics.com/coronavirus/
> >
> > Had you written 98% instead of 99% I would
> > have let it pass. Wondering where do you get
> > your data. Please provide sources.
> Well it is not only me (by quoting Ioannidis) that says the survivability to be at 99%... but also Ioannidis and the public ministry of health in sweden.
>
> Study of Sweden: https://www.folkhalsomyndigheten.se/contentassets/53c0dc391be54f5d959ead9131edb771/infection-fatality-rate-covid-19-stockholm-technical-report.pdf
>
> Go to page 17 and read "IFR for Age 0-69 = 0,09%"
> >
> > 1.6% mortality is at least 8x higher than flu.
> >

Sweden's data is only valid for Sweden.
Even an idiot like you should be capable
to understand IFR varies by geography
and population -- and probably other
variables.

dk

MINe109 schrieb am Sonntag, 28. November 2021 um 20:05:44 UTC+1:
> On 11/28/21 5:31 AM, Marc S wrote:
> > Give me a concrete and logically sound argument on why Ioannidis is wrong. You seem not to be able to do this on your own, because you don't seem to know anthing about the specifics on how data was gathered and evaluated.
> That's because there are questions about the specifics on how the data
> was gathered and evaluated.
>
> To continue, please be more specific as to what Ioannidis's argument is.

Ioannidis's argument as per his WHO study and also follow up studies is a very low IFR (probabilty of dying for an infected person).

According to his and his team's studies he puts the global IFR at 0,15%, the IFR of Europe/America at 0,3-0,4% (among community dwelling at 0,2%) and the IFR in Africa/Asia at 0,5-0,1%.

This is discussed in this video (at the time I marked): https://youtu.be/B_ehqHQOBO0?t=1311. I would suggest you to watch it. As there is much more info to be gained from this video than from single articles or news outlets..

To me his approach sounds very logical, and I am not the only one to think so. So, the reason for me posting in this thread among people who blindlessly call for mandatory vaccination/forcing vaccination on others is, that I wanted to show them, that they don't act out of knowledge by doing so, but out of fear and irrational reasoning and falsely held beliefs. And that forcing one's beliefs on others by wanting them to be forced to get vaccinated, is a fascist move. Furthermore, I wanted to go against spewing "hatred" against Anti-vaxxers, by equating them with a "pro-death-movement" (as Herman likes to do in his simple mind). It is much more nuanced than this.

The reason why I say that Dan or you (in regards to Ioannidis' studies being wrong) act on beliefs is, because evidently you do not have the knowledge to verify for example if what the article says about Ioannidis' is right or wrong and if one should dismiss his studies, because of this or not; or in Dan's case if hte IFR is really at 1,63% - which Ioannidis claims is not. There are quite a few "normal" people who actually do believe Ioannidis. But all Herman and Dan sees are conspiracy theorists on, based on nothing but their beliefs, when being presented conflicting data. This is quite sad actually.

Instead of rationally analysing their own thought process and coming to the conclusion, that they act only on their beliefs, they delude themselves to think they have found the truth. They then use their belief to devalue the group of anti-vaxxers by equating them with a death movement and basically all being conspircacy theorists. They consider anti-vaxxers basically heretics ;)

Herman only reacts emotionally, and Dan is also quite emotional too ;) And you, well sometimes I guess ;D

On 11/28/2021 2:17 PM, Dan Koren wrote:
> On Sunday, November 28, 2021 at 12:34:21 PM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
>> On 11/27/2021 10:31 PM, Dan Koren wrote:
>>> On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 10:17:00 PM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
>>>> On 11/26/2021 5:32 PM, Dan Koren wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, November 26, 2021 at 7:31:59 AM UTC-5, Marc S wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Basically every scientific study that stands in
>>>>>> contrast to public opinion is a pain in the ass:
>>>>>> Such as that the infection fatality rates are
>>>>>> super low for most of the population.
>>>>>
>>>>> As far as one can tell, the infection fatality
>>>>> rate for COVID is about 10x higher than for
>>>>> flu, and the numbers are consistent across
>>>>> many sources. One caveat is that flu deaths
>>>>> are probably under reported as they do not
>>>>> have to be reported in may countries.
>>>>>
>>>>> The average worldwide COVID fatality rate
>>>>> stands at 0.23%, while the US has a fatality
>>>>> rate of 1.63%. I don't quite understand why
>>>>> anyone would describe them as "super low".
>>>>> The worldwide mortality rate is probably
>>>>> understated because of incomplete and
>>>>> non-uniform reporting across countries.
>>>>>
>>>>> In the US, one person in 7 has contracted
>>>>> the disease, and one person in 417 died
>>>>> of it.
>>>>
>>>> And yet, IIRC, an under 65 person without
>>>> health issues has well over a 99% chance
>>>> of recovery from Covid. Is that wrong?
>>>
>>> Obviously, considering that the mortality
>>> rate normalized to the number of cases
>>> is 1.63% in the US according to publicly
>>> available data.
>>>
>>> According to
>>> https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries
>>> the US has 147,059 cases per 1M and 2,395
>>> deaths per 1M. Thus the calculated mortality
>>> is 1.6285%, which I rounded up to 1.63%.
>>>
>>> This is consistent with RCP's COVID tracker:
>>> https://www.realclearpolitics.com/coronavirus/
>>>
>>> Had you written 98% instead of 99% I would
>>> have let it pass. Wondering where do you get
>>> your data. Please provide sources.
>>>
>>> 1.6% mortality is at least 8x higher than flu.
>>
>> Not obvious to me at this point, since your
>> figures are not age/health specific whereas
>
> I don't have time to split hairs, and it doesn't
> matter anyway.
>
>> I specified under 65 and without a compromising
>> condition.
>
> You did not provide any data -- only hand waving.
> Can you explain how can "under 65 and without a
> compromising condition" be quantified?
>
>> And Marc S, who I truly hate to be defending,
>> specified "most of the population.
>
> Numbers please! As data analysts like to say,
> "In God We Trust. Everyone else please bring
> data".
>
> dk
>
For starters, this.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-sex-demographics/

Though not showing exactly the mortality case rate for below 65, if you were to weight the age category rates by the number of people in these categories for under 70 and certainly under 60 you will get a case rate of obviously less than 1 %.

These are well known facts. I'm surprised you don't know them. You can easily find confirming evidence.

I'm not trying to make any political or policy point here. I don't know what should have been done or what should be done. The fact that Covid-19 is way, way, disproportionately dangerous to the aged and immuno-compromised (as opposed to the flu, which is much less so) has suggested policy options to some, including the authors of the Great Barrington Declaration, dismissed out of hand by the media.

There are other tables like this

MINe109 schrieb am Sonntag, 28. November 2021 um 20:09:10 UTC+1:
> On 11/28/21 5:45 AM, Marc S wrote:
> > MINe109 schrieb am Samstag, 27. November 2021 um 22:44:42 UTC+1:
> >> IFR is a moving target. Lockdowns were meant primarily to avoid
> >> overwhelming the health system no matter how much it was hoped
> >> they would prevent spread.
> >
> > IFR is a moving target? So based on this statement of you, I can't
> > believe either in the IFR of Ioannidis or the IFR mentioned by Dan,
> > right?
> It's a snapshot in time that depends on valid testing and accurate case
> counts.
>
> You can believe either figure was correct when derived.

It is not only a question of time (referring to your "when"), but of many other circumstances as well...

>
> An absolute figure is impossible but the closest thing to it can be
> calculated when the pandemic is over.

It is true that no absolutely "true" figure can be derived, but how "true" the result is to reality, depends on the methodology. And I believe Ioannidis and his team's methodology to be one of the best, if not the best. And ioannidis's latest studies aren't old...

even if the pandemic is over no 100% true figure could be stated btw.

MINe109 schrieb am Sonntag, 28. November 2021 um 20:09:10 UTC+1:
> On 11/28/21 5:45 AM, Marc S wrote:
> > MINe109 schrieb am Samstag, 27. November 2021 um 22:44:42 UTC+1:
> >> IFR is a moving target. Lockdowns were meant primarily to avoid
> >> overwhelming the health system no matter how much it was hoped
> >> they would prevent spread.
> >
> > IFR is a moving target? So based on this statement of you, I can't
> > believe either in the IFR of Ioannidis or the IFR mentioned by Dan,
> > right?
> It's a snapshot in time that depends on valid testing and accurate case
> counts.
>
> You can believe either figure was correct when derived.
>
> An absolute figure is impossible but the closest thing to it can be
> calculated when the pandemic is over.

In regards to COVID, I consider the following said by Prof. Manuel Schabus under the video I linked you in my last reply, to be reasonable (at least for the time being):

"I think John generally remains optimistic on vaccines, but of course agrees that we need to continue to collect data on duration of effectiveness and on frequency of harms. I think it is save to say that both of us clearly remain against mandatory vaccination. For healthy people below 40 or so, I think the difference in risks and benefits is very small, because both quantities are small. For children & adolescents the risks definitely outweigh the benefits!"

On Sunday, November 28, 2021 at 3:26:26 PM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
> > Numbers please! As data analysts like to say,
> > "In God We Trust. Everyone else please bring
> > data".
>
> For starters, this.
>
> https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-sex-demographics/

If you cared to read the fine print,
that study is based on data from
New York City. It is ridiculous to
claim global validity.

dk

On 11/28/2021 3:51 PM, Dan Koren wrote:
> On Sunday, November 28, 2021 at 3:26:26 PM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
>>> Numbers please! As data analysts like to say,
>>> "In God We Trust. Everyone else please bring
>>> data".
>>
>> For starters, this.
>>
>> https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-sex-demographics/
>
> If you cared to read the fine print,
> that study is based on data from
> New York City. It is ridiculous to
> claim global validity.
>
> dk
>

Why don't you look up global numbers and report back?