>The actual mortality is almost certainly significantly lower - the Oxford's CBM estimates 0.2% [1], so twice as bad as flu.
The Oxford CEBM estimate is an extreme outlier, and I have not seen a pre-print of any rigorous work that was used to produce those estimates. That, for lack of a better word, blog post you linked to is full of spurious analyses like the following:
>Therefore, to estimate the IFR, we used the estimate from Germany’s current data 22nd March (93 deaths 23129) cases); CFR 0.51%
So they essentially just took the current cases and produced a naive case fatality rate, despite the fact that many cases are still ongoing? By the way the number of deaths is 281 now and Germany's nCFR is climbing quickly, yet they have not revised their estimate higher. Why is that?
I'll also note that they conveniently exclude South Korea from their analysis. Why are they only choosing countries that favorably support their "low IFR" hypothesis?
>The results of screenings have suggested 0.5% are infected; the true figure is likely higher due to asymptomatic and as a result of many not seeking testing: estimates suggest the real number infected is 1%. Iceland is currently reporting two deaths in 737 patients, CFR. 0.27%; if 1% of the population (364,000) is infected then the corresponding IFR would be 0.05%.
They neglect to include in their analysis that the 1% infected ratio for Iceland came from a voluntary screening study, meaning that it was not a random population sample but most likely enriched for infected cases. They then naively back this out to a ridiculous IFR of 0.05%. Honestly, are these people even actual researchers?
>Let's even assume incorrectly that all COVID deaths are on top of the 600k normal deaths. So in 2020 85% more people die of natural causes than normally. Almost exclusively very old and already ill people. It's just not a big deal and it's crazy that people think it is.
This ghoulish statement is all that I really need to know about you.
The Oxford CEBM estimate is an extreme outlier, and I have not seen a pre-print of any rigorous work that was used to produce those estimates. That, for lack of a better word, blog post you linked to is full of spurious analyses like the following:
>Therefore, to estimate the IFR, we used the estimate from Germany’s current data 22nd March (93 deaths 23129) cases); CFR 0.51%
So they essentially just took the current cases and produced a naive case fatality rate, despite the fact that many cases are still ongoing? By the way the number of deaths is 281 now and Germany's nCFR is climbing quickly, yet they have not revised their estimate higher. Why is that?
I'll also note that they conveniently exclude South Korea from their analysis. Why are they only choosing countries that favorably support their "low IFR" hypothesis?
>The results of screenings have suggested 0.5% are infected; the true figure is likely higher due to asymptomatic and as a result of many not seeking testing: estimates suggest the real number infected is 1%. Iceland is currently reporting two deaths in 737 patients, CFR. 0.27%; if 1% of the population (364,000) is infected then the corresponding IFR would be 0.05%.
They neglect to include in their analysis that the 1% infected ratio for Iceland came from a voluntary screening study, meaning that it was not a random population sample but most likely enriched for infected cases. They then naively back this out to a ridiculous IFR of 0.05%. Honestly, are these people even actual researchers?
>Let's even assume incorrectly that all COVID deaths are on top of the 600k normal deaths. So in 2020 85% more people die of natural causes than normally. Almost exclusively very old and already ill people. It's just not a big deal and it's crazy that people think it is.
This ghoulish statement is all that I really need to know about you.