WHO peer reviewed study. IFR of 0.05% for under 70s. It is like flu

[hamstersarse]

www.who.int/bulletin/online_first/BLT.20.265892.pdf

Conclusion
"The inferred infection fatality rates
tended to be much lower than estimates made earlier in the pandemic."

Can we get a grip yet?

The nature article (not study) references studies that have assumed you've only survived Covid if you test positively for certain antibodies.

I am afraid this is just nonsense. We can try to dismiss mainstream scientific consensus but in the end we just look like flat earthers or conspiracy theorists.

Here is another paper coming to much the same IFR as I quoted www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.23.20160895v6

Any respectable and up to date paper you find will say the same thing.

If you are going to claim 0.1% IFR you have to believe that 50 million people in the UK have already been infected.

Wow, you'd have thought we'd have hit herd immunity by now? Wonder how we got almost twenty thousand new cases today?

Re smell, mine is hypersensitive. It damped right down when I had what was I guess covid in March and it was an absolute relief, was gutted when it came back.

But I guess if you're happy for it to rip through and kill off the old and vulnerable you're not a very kind person anyway

But I guess if you support shutting does the global economy, doubling extreme poverty and causing millions more deaths of children under five globally, you're not a very kind person anyway.

Except there have not been 45000 deaths from COVID @FourTeaFallOut. There have been 45000 deaths within 28 days of a positive test.

We don’t know how many people have died from COVID in the U.K.

[quote whereisthejoy]@swg1 exactly!

I'm posting as someone who lost their job in June FYI. And my toddler has had 6-7 months with pretty much just me and DH.

So no, I don't want the economy and country to crash (does anyone?) but you don't want to let it rip through.

I really don't understand why people feel the need to be so unkind on here. But I guess if you're happy for it to rip through and kill off the old and vulnerable you're not a very kind person anyway. [/quote]
Yes the over 80s aren’t worth protecting and have nothing to contribute. Except David Attenborough and Mary Berry.

Wow, you'd have thought we'd have hit herd immunity by now? Wonder how we got almost twenty thousand new cases today?

Yes exactly. There is no mystery about the IFR, we know what it is within a reasonable range and the OP is just plain wrong.

There are, on the other hand, plenty of things we don't really know about covid. It's more useful to discuss those than to repeat extremist views about questions that are settled.

Give over Ecosse.

"It is like flu" - no it is not; that is the whole point.

We don’t know how many people have died from COVID in the U.K.

The ONS, who I tend to trust, made a recent estimate up to August and came to a number just under 50,000. The number for the flu for the same Jan to August period was under 400.

@notevenat20

We don’t know how many people have died from COVID in the U.K.

The ONS, who I tend to trust, made a recent estimate up to August and came to a number just under 50,000. The number for the flu for the same Jan to August period was under 400.

What's the average flu number.. 400 doesn't ring true to me

@Ecosse

Except there have not been 45000 deaths from COVID *@FourTeaFallOut*. There have been 45000 deaths within 28 days of a positive test.

We don’t know how many people have died from COVID in the U.K.

So what do you think they died of? Because it's very clear that these are excess deaths, so not due to the 'normal' patterns.

@notevenat20

Wow, you'd have thought we'd have hit herd immunity by now? Wonder how we got almost twenty thousand new cases today?

Yes exactly. There is no mystery about the IFR, we know what it is within a reasonable range and the OP is just plain wrong.

There are, on the other hand, plenty of things we don't really know about covid. It's more useful to discuss those than to repeat extremist views about questions that are settled.

If it was settled there wouldn't be so many studies trying to establish what the IFR is.

What's the average flu number.. 400 doesn't ring true to me

I don't know what it normally is for Jan to August but around 11,000 died of pneumonia. Here is the study www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/deathsduetocoronaviruscovid19comparedwithdeathsfrominfluenzaandpneumoniaenglandandwales/deathsoccurringbetween1januaryand31august2020

Sorry, around 14,000 died if pneumonia.

It is certainly true that many people who would otherwise have died from flu this year have instead unfortunately died from COVID, particularly in care homes (where the average resident will only live 2 years).

I suspect a lot of flu deaths have also been put down as COVID on the death certificate due to the very similar symptoms.

If it was settled there wouldn't be so many studies trying to establish what the IFR is.

The broad range is settled. People of course want to make it more accurate and to slice it more finely by age, sex etc.

It is accepted for example that the flu is more deadly for under 30s than COVID.

Thanks for sharing - great find. I especially liked the last paragraph:

World Health Organisation said:
"Acknowledging these limitations, based on the currently available data, one may project that over half a billion people have been infected as of 12 September, 2020, far more than the approximately 29 million documented laboratory-confirmed cases. Most locations probably have an infection fatality rate less than 0.20% and with appropriate, precise non-pharmacological measures that selectively try to protect high-risk vulnerable populations and settings, the infection fatality rate may be brought even lower."

I suspect a lot of flu deaths have also been put down as COVID on the death certificate due to the very similar symptoms.

I am not sure that is actually true. And just numerically, as there were 50,000 deaths from covid, almost all of which occurred after end of March outside the flu season, that can only have been a tiny number that would otherwise have died of the flu.

It is accepted for example that the flu is more deadly for under 30s than COVID.

Now we have entered into the realm of game playing. Almost no one in the UK under 30 dies of either!

@notevenat20

Yes, but to put it bluntly a lot of people who would have died from flu this winter have already died from COVID.

Long Covid has so far been shown to cause a number of serious issues including heart, lung, or kidney damage, type 1 diabetes, and blood clotting issues. And we still have much to learn about it.

Experts estimate it's affected around 10%. A significant proportion of the working age population. Many young formerly fit and healthy.

Note that's with some form of restrictions. Who knows how many more might develop it without.

We also don't yet know about potential hidden problems, i.e. damage that only becomes apparent later on life.

Those who still scoff at it's existence. The cash strapped NHS does not made a habit of setting up treatment clinics for non existent illnesses. Perhaps also have a chat with the group of doctors who wrote to the BMJ describing their personal experiences of it's debilitating effects.

@notevenat20

The nature article (not study) references studies that have assumed you've only survived Covid if you test positively for certain antibodies.

I am afraid this is just nonsense. We can try to dismiss mainstream scientific consensus but in the end we just look like flat earthers or conspiracy theorists.

Here is another paper coming to much the same IFR as I quoted www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.23.20160895v6

Any respectable and up to date paper you find will say the same thing.

It's not consensus when you're offering up studies that have yet to be peer-reviewed.

There will be a consensus on the IFR in years to come, but at the moment the estimates are very rough.