Underground Knowledge — A discussion group discussion

Ian wrote: "At a personaly level, I feel the 600 thousand odd already is far from trivial...."

Correct.

And I certainly hope Ian, you also deemed the estimated 1-1.5M who died globally in the 2017-2018 Influenza season far from trivial also... Not to mention the 650,000 who die annually from Influenza in regular flu seasons...

#Consistency

James wrote: "And I certainly hope Ian, you also deemed the estimated 1-1.5M who died globally in the 2017-2018 Influenza season far from trivial also... Not to mention the 650,000 who die annually from Influenza in regular flu seasons......"

Further to the above, does anyone know how long the severe (yet under-reported) 2017-2018 Influenza season lasted?

I found the below mention of 19 weeks only, but not sure if that's true. I assume it was over the Northern Hemisphere's winter?

"Influenza-like illness (ILI) was at or above the national baseline for 19 weeks, making the 2017-2018 season one of the longest in recent years. For more information, see the MMWR: 2017-18 Influenza Activity Update or visit FluView Interactive."

Hey hang on a sec, it mentions Influenza-like illness (ILI) not Influenza specifically...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influen...
Influenza-like illness (ILI), also known as flu-like syndrome/symptoms, is a medical diagnosis of POSSIBLE influenza or other illness causing a set of common symptoms.

So given some recent flu seasons before 2019/20 have been at record highs, and given they have now found "Covid-19" in Italian and Spanish drain population samples dating back to March 2019 (9 months before Wuhan outbreak), and given that Influenza this year is down by as much as 85-95% in many countries including Southern Hemisphere nations like NZ and AU that have mostly been out of lockdown for weeks or months (as reported via mainstream media and shared in this group)...Is it possible this current version of the common Coronavirus has been with us longer than known and went undetected all this time?

Are you guys thinking what I'm thinking?

Also, did we ever get any links or references to answer any of these questions Anni raised previously?

1). Is there an electron micrograph of the pure and fully characterised virus?
2). What is the name of the primary specialist peer reviewed paper in which the ‘virus’ is illustrated and it’s full genetic information described?
3). What is the name of the primary specialist peer reviewed paper which provides unequivocal proof that the ‘Covid-19’ virus is the sole cause of a particular disease?

Anything of relevance here in this 2015 study?

Human Coronavirus-Associated Influenza-Like Illness in the Community Setting in Peru https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...

James wrote: "Anything of relevance here in this 2015 study?

Human Coronavirus-Associated Influenza-Like Illness in the Community Setting in Peru https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti..."

Sounds to me that in South America at least various coronaviruses were previously termed "influenza-like illness"
"Human coronaviruses are present in different regions of Peru and are relatively frequently associated with influenza-like illness in Peru."

So notwithstanding we are being told the 2019 edition of the old Coronavirus is different to what's come before, could it be more of a case that it might be a reclassification of the vague/ambiguous term "influenza-like illness" (ILI) rather than diagnosed Influenza specifically? As it appears to be clear now that most recorded Influenza cases in the past were not laboratory confirmed cases, but rather reported only as "influenza-like illness" (ILI)...

Enough ambiguity in that for reclassification to occur in late 2019?

I have always believed that the ‘new’ virus is simply a variant strain of influenza - which is why the vaccine has to be adapted every flu season. And the figures show it is no more deadly than flu and that it affects the same group of susceptible people with compromised immunity.
BTW - I have not received a reply to my questions quoted above from Government ministers ... surprise, surprise !!

Ian J Miller, you missed my point. The Army boss said in his press conference, that they knew they were going to be released for the funeral they'd come for. If he was telling the truth which I don't believe, why did they escape especially at such physical risk?

Ian J Miller, I am very annoyed now! I had to delay my brother's funeral a week so my sisters could get here, some people still couldn't make it. Use your common sense, there's a point past which delay isn't physically possible. I have terrible reason to know.

Debby, I have no idea why they escaped. I certainly cannot think of a good reason.

James, according to Wikipedia, the Spanish flu lasted from February, 1918 to April 1920, so it was a little over two years. The number of infections was about 500 million (about 1/3 of the world population) and the death toll was between 20 to 50 million. including 675,000 Americans. It was a rather deadly disease, and travelled in four waves.

The Cornavirus is not the flu - that is a completely different virus family.

The reason the flu infection rate is down in NZ could be due to two things. First, the lockdown meant that transmission of flu was also hindered, and since it has a shorter cycle than the coronavirus, it it was long enough to stop community transmission of the coronavirus, it would stop the flu. We have also effectively shut the border, so no flu victims coming in other than through quarantine. Also, we had a record number of flu vaccinations.

The point about taxonomy is as follows. It may be that all members of an order show test components A, B, C. It may be that all coronaviruses show A, B, C, D, E, F, G. Flu might give responses A,B, C, G, H, I. It may also be that the SARS coronavirus shows A,B, C, D, E, F, G, M while a cold coronavirus shows A,B,C,D,E,F,G,N. If so, a test that gives any of D, E, F can show a coronavirus, but it needs M to show the SARS one. Basic set theory, but proper testing, say, would show not H,I, to show it was not flu. Taxonomy gives the methodology to differentiate, but only if it is done properly, and tests that show components can very well inadvertently give the wrong result.

Ian, how do you know that the ‘Covid virus’ is not the same as the flu virus? It has never been isolated in a laboratory- see above re. my 3 questions to Govt. ministers,

Ian wrote: "James, according to Wikipedia, the Spanish flu lasted from February, 1918 to April 1920, so it was a little over two years. The number of infections was about 500 million (about 1/3 of the world population) and the death toll was between 20 to 50 million. including 675,000 Americans. It was a rather deadly disease, and travelled in four waves...."

Yes absolutely true Ian, it was a rather deadly disease - and one I've researched and written about in published books, I might add (that's not me putting in a plug, but rather to say I respect that the Spanish Flu was a serious assault on humanity and have never downplayed it - If we had ANYTHING like that now I wouldn't need to be locked down by our govt, I'd probably quarantine myself at least as much as I could).

But we are all being subtly forced (according to the prevailing narrative in the news media and popular media) to compare the Spanish Flu to Rona and essentially superimpose history over the present.

So fine, let's compare...

The best estimates of the latest analysis of scientists and historians I have read is that the death toll of the Spanish Flu was actually around 20M (as you wrote) and the amount infected globally including asymptomatic etc was just over 500M globally (as you also say that was a third of humanity's population at that time).

So... The IFR of that particular flu strain was around 3.5% to 4% if you do the math. That's a frighteningly scary virus and only a fool, and an anti-scientific one at that, wouldn't take it seriously. With a virus as deadly as that, if that spread in modern America you would have around 100M infected and 30M deaths!! Armageddon levels almost when you consider how that would also end up killing others not infected as a by-product (e.g. destruction of economic systems, parents of children dying etc, etc).

By comparison, Rona has so far by best estimates already infected over 200M globally. I see from all your comments Ian you do not believe that and do not care or will not listen to ANY estimates whatsoever, but the more important point is the best infectious disease scientists around the world (whether in the CDC, London Imperial College, Stanford etc etc) all greatly care about such estimates, as they relate to the crucial IFR (not the CFR you and numerous others globally have been inadvertently and incorrectly quoting as "the death rate" https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/... ).

And I agree with those scientists: Estimates (tho never going to be exactly precise) are THE most crucial thing in this entire scenario.

So for example the CDC has estimated just over 10% of Americans (32,000,000) have already had, or currently have, this virus from their exhaustive research to date - the CDC said that 2 weeks ago, so by now maybe it's 40,000,000. The UK's London Imperial College estimates 12% or 8 million Brits. Now some nations, like Australia and New Zealand have had far less exposure however and it's more likely 1% or thereabouts that in certain more isolated nations have had it. But this is how the very best infectious disease experts are estimating the all important IFR and come to the conclusion that around 200M (or 40% of the Spanish Flu infected in 1920) have already had this virus (most unaware they ever had it of course).

Now we also obviously need to acknowledge that out of the 200M or so infected, some will die in the near future as they remain in intensive care. Even as I write this, more are dying in hospitals around the world. And the current 650,000 death toll will increase. But at the end of the day, the most advanced medical bodies on the planet are estimating an IFR death rate of only 0.2 to 0.4% (I use the world only in terms of comparison). So the Spanish Flu is in all likelihood going to be 10-20 times more deadly (remember that had an IFR death toll estimated at 4% approximately).

So Rona is a LOT less deadly and has now potentially fallen into the range of manageable without extreme measures (as the Swedish scientists said all along). Especially when you consider that altho Influenza's average IFR is only 0.1%, some bad flu seasons (like the super deadly 2017-2018 Influenza season), can have an IFR as high as 0.3%. Correct me if I am wrong, but nobody has ever mentioned turning society upsidedown and risking the entire foundations of our world for general Influenza? So what is the rate or level of death where a disease becomes worthy of risking our entire world for?? How many people are questioning this aspect of lethality instead of blindly regurgitating the alarmist narrative in the (unscientific and biased and sensationalist) news media?

Now the "less deadly" aspect of comparing this virus to the Spanish Flu is absolutely crucial (whether you like it or not) when it comes to making decisions as a politician. Politicians cannot afford to be myopic (as is obvious to me you are being) and ONLY consider one aspect of society (in this instance only considering the medical threat). Instead, they must consider all aspects (the multifaceted topics beyond medical science). So yes, politicians absolutely need to consider that we have a virus that is killing people and they need to consider where possible how to protect the vulnerable and managing things. But then they need to also consider other things like economic aspects, poverty factors, human rights violations, the technological creep, the democratic process etc etc (all which more lockdowns could greatly impact on and frankly assault our planet much more than any virus with around a 0.2-0.4% IFR death rate).

Now it's totally fine Ian if you admit you are only watching mainstream news and trusting the news spin and that you are only looking at the medical aspect (as seems obvious by all your limited perspective comments and dismissiveness and frankly even your insensitivity towards all those who are and will be negatively impacted or die in society due to the extreme virus measures rather than the virus itself).

But good politicians (if any still exist) who successfully manage vast populations need to be philosophical thinkers and be able to weigh up the damage of various things and understand that in many situations (like this one) there will be damage and destruction in all directions e.g. right now the stats are just beginning to come in for increasing suicides, increasing mental health damage, increasing human rights violations, increasing cases of terminally ill not getting adequate treatments due to Rona cases taking priority, increasing cases of extreme poverty globally due to lockdowns, increasing unemployment, increasing domestic violence AND our economies being on the brink and potentially worse than The Great Depression, not to mention various individual freedoms being thwarted in the name of this virus!.

So Ian, I have noticed you have been flat out accusing many others in this group or in society at large of being "selfish" or even "wanting to kill elderly due to not giving a damn". But conversely, you clearly you do not want to consider anything but your own situation as a senior citizen (a sector who you rightly point out are more at risk of being impacted by this virus) and you want to only focus on the medical threat. BUT that's not how politics and democracy and high-level decision making works.

In reality, we are talking deaths vs deaths. The front end death toll from the virus vs the death toll of the measures. Both death tolls are guaranteed (e.g. the UN indicated recently an extra 1.1 BILLION people will slide into "extreme poverty" levels due to the measures taken to date against the virus). So that is why it needs philosophical thinkers and entire teams/thinktanks of diverse experts who can consider all the different aspects that are greatly becoming clearer in time...And specifically question whether there has and continues to be an overreaction and whether a nation like Sweden is doing the better approach.

So in reality were you or I a politician, we would need to take in all the kaleidoscope of 2020 rather than the limited subject you are raising, and genuinely ask ourselves: Are the current measures and the long-term world we are setting up here worth it for a virus that our best infectious disease scientists estimate has a death rate of around 0.2-0.4% (slightly worse than a bad Influenza season)?

P.S. And remember, if you were an honest politician you cannot answer from a selfish perspective of what's best for you personally for your age group or whatever, you must answer what would be best for the entire population you represent.

Anni, the SARS virus has had its genome fully characterised and has been isolated. If the following link works, you will see the image junder an elecrtron microscope: www.npr.org › 2020/02/13 › images-what-new-coronavirus-looks-like

James, my approach is simple. As a politician your first duty is to achieve something. The hard lockdown here eliminated the virus and yes, with considerable economic damage, but it saved lives. Those who have not bothered or did not do it properly have allowed a large number of deaths AND there is still a huge economic damage. Obviously it is far from clear what the overall score will end up as, but I feel the economic damage will be as bad or worse when there was no lockdown, and you have all those additional deaths.

If we wish to compare with the Spanish flu, then we will have to wait at least two years to total the damage

Back to the question of estimates. Science works by making propositions of the sort: If A is there, and if the set of premises B is correct, under certain experiments you will see the set of outcomes O. However, seeing O does not prove A or B (or not exclusive). Proof can only arrive by replacing both "ifs" with "if and only if"s.

Which, James, is why I want a link or reference to see the basis of your estimates. The probability of an estimate being correct depends on the vlaidity of the premises used.

Ian, I think it's abundantly clear by now that you have not researched, and have zero interest in, the vast amount of dangers/risks to society from the virus measures such as lockdowns and other restrictions. You appear to be the sheer definition of myopic in this case and therefore have a very limited perspective (perhaps even a subjective one) on 2020...

And because of this your instant kneejerk reaction to any research (e.g. the UN study posted earlier in this thread that highlighted the economic and societal impact of the virus measures and estimating 1.1 Billion more people will slide into "extreme poverty") is basically to ignore as irrelevant - or to dismiss it all as overstated.

Continuing to almost solely mention our little old (isolated) nation of 5 million people is myopic also -- this needs to be observed at a global level and NZ is frankly making all kinds of assumption (perhaps politically motivated) that may or may not turn out to be scientifically true.

But that's all perfectly fine as the world obviously needs specialists (e.g. medical scientists) who have a narrow focus but major expertise within that field...and the world also needs generalists who are more philosophical thinkers capable, and interested in, assessing the myriad of problems and options that often spiral out of any new situation our society faces. No single individual will solve this anyway and it will require teams of different types of thinkers -- and even entire nations whereby trial and error is done with the likes of Sweden.

So again, it's perfectly fine that you are only engaging or responding to about 5% of the subjects raised surrounding this virus and are basically only wanting a very limited medical science debate...I just think it's important to highlight that, especially as even the heading of this thread "Is the Corona LOCKDOWN about something more than just the virus?" (in a group called Underground Knowledge) is encouraging one to play Devil's Advocate and at least consider wider concerns (for the sake of good citizenry) rather than trusting and regurgitating details from mainstream media outlets. Often this "underground" approach leads to debunking incorrect myths or theories, but other times little known truths may be uncovered.

So sticking to the medical science aspect only, you are exhibiting an extreme resistance to the world's leading infectious disease experts. You have said "there is no data" (quoting you verbatim) for which medical authorities like the CDC, WHO, Stanford and others I and others in this group have repeatedly linked scientific papers which have various references to data...

It's pseudoscientific and even a bit luddite-ish to not even consider the world's leading scientists in this field (who virtually all say that the IFR death rate is ONLY between 0.2-0.4% with one body stating 0.6% and Stanford saying 0.1-0.2%). It's one thing to be skeptical of processes, to ask for more research and data finding (we all should be pushing for that), but to reject all such estimates is to forget we have a virus that's now been studied for over 6 or 7 months and the most widely researched and most well-funded scientific arena for a long, long time.

I could understand your attitude if it was 1920, but not now. We do not have a absolutely precise IFR death rate, but it'll definitely be in the vicinity and maybe 0.34 instead of 0.4 or 0.29 instead of 0.24% or maybe at the high end it'll be 0.69% instead of 0.61%. But in 2020 it won't be out by much - for example, one such study I list below that estimates a 0.1-0.3% fatality rate mentions "the Covid-19 fatality rate is estimated to be found with 95% confidence in the range [0.1%; 0.3%]".

And that was my point all along, you were incorrectly quoting the CFR which lead to your statements it has Spanish Flu levels of fatality rate -- that was why you were erroneously quoting the 5% mega fatality rate. And I think this common medical error completely explains your rather hysterical comments about "young people wanting to kill me" and calling anyone who even dares to question the lockdown approach or the need for vaccines as being utterly "selfish"...

So if you want to find data behind estimates, all you need to do is Google "IFR" and "Covid" and you'll easily find how the world's leading infectious disease scientists are coming to these surprisingly low fatality rates (low compared to the likes of the Spanish Flu, SARS and Ebola).

But just in passing here are just a few such papers and links to data to show how the likes of the CDC and others are coming to these fatality rate estimates...


Estimating the burden of SARS-CoV-2 in France (Science Magazine) https://science.sciencemag.org/conten...

COVID-19 Fatality Rate CDC https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-...

The Lancet: Serology-informed estimates of SARS-CoV-2 infection
fatality risk in Geneva, Switzerland https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journa...

The infection fatality risk (IFR) is
the average number of deaths per
infection by a pathogen and is key to
characterising the severity of infection
across the population and for specific
demographic groups.

New Research from MIT Estimates COVID-19 Infection Rates 12 Times Higher Than Documented
"New research by a team at MIT Sloan School of Management examined 84 of the most affected countries—spanning 4.75 billion people—and estimate 88.5 million cases and 600 thousand deaths through June 18, 2020"


This New England Journal of Medicine article references the data collection and research from the Chinese end (you'll see they came to an estimate of 0.5% IFR fatality rate): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...

Assessing the Age Specificity of Infection Fatality Rates for COVID-19: Meta-Analysis & Public Policy Implications https://www.nber.org/
"We compare those predictions to the age-specific IFRs computed using recent seroprevalence studies of six U.S. geographical areas, three small-scale studies, and three countries (Iceland, New Zealand, and Republic of Korea) that have engaged in comprehensive tracking and tracing of COVID-19 infections. We also review more than 30 other seroprevalence studies whose design was not well-suited for estimating age-specific IFRs."

A systematic review and meta-analysis of published research data on COVID-19 infection-fatality rates https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.11...

Even Wikipedia, although a bit out of date (as research and data is coming in fast) and a bit alarmist (due to being out of date), will link you to various papers and research studies that list detailed references...

Coronavirus disease 2019 - Prognosis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronav...

Sweden: The One Chart that Matters https://www.globalresearch.ca/sweden-...

While the Covid-19 epidemic continues to drag on in the United States, it’s largely over in Sweden where fatalities have dropped to no more than 2 deaths per day for the last week. Sweden has been harshly criticized in the media for not imposing draconian lockdowns like the United States and the other European countries. Instead, Sweden implemented a policy that was both conventional and sensible. They recommended that people maintain a safe distance between each other and they banned gatherings of 50 people or more. They also asked their elderly citizens to isolate themselves and to avoid interacting with other people as much as possible. Other than that, Swedes were encouraged to work, exercise and get on with their lives as they would normally even though the world was still in the throes of a global pandemic.

The secret of Sweden’s success is that its experts settled on a strategy that was realistic, sustainable and science-based. The intention was never to “fight” the virus which is among the most contagious infections in the last century, but to protect the old and vulnerable while allowing the young, low-risk people to circulate, contract the virus, and develop the antibodies they’d need to fight similar pathogens in the future. It’s clear now that that was the best approach. And while Sweden could still experience sporadic outbreaks that might kill another 2 to 300 people, any recurrence of the infection in the Fall or Winter will not be a dreaded “Second Wave”, but a much weaker flu-like event that will not overwhelm the public health system or kill thousands of people.

Off the back of these Rona measures, are they trying to destroy capitalism and create an entirely new system?

US Economic Collapse: The Worst in US History https://www.globalresearch.ca/us-econ...

According to economist John Williams, real US unemployment is 32.1% — not the phony Bureau of Labor Statistics phony 11.1%.

Around one-third of working-age Americans are jobless — the number far exceeding peek 25% unemployment during the 1930s Great Depression.

Rising gold and silver prices reflect inflation fears because of money printing madness by the Fed and countless trillions of dollars spent for militarism and endless wars.

James, the CDC reference you give gets the IFR from another review, not from CDC work, and here is a quote:
"Conclusion Based on a systematic review and meta-analysis of published evidence on COVID-19 until May, 2020, the IFR of the disease across populations is 0.68% (0.53-0.82%). However, due to very high heterogeneity in the meta-analysis, it is difficult to know if this represents the true point estimate. It is likely that, due to age and perhaps underlying comorbidities in the population, different places will experience different IFRs due to the disease. Given issues with mortality recording, it is also likely that this represents an underestimate of the true IFR figure. More research looking at age-stratified IFR is urgently needed to inform policy-making on this front."

It is also starting to become clear that the fatality rate is a function of the age of the analysed sample, as per the last sentence of the quote.

As for the economic effect of lockdowns, the problem with citing the US is they did not do it properly. Certainly there are awful problems now, with unemployment (and I suspect the figure you quote of 32% is uncomfortably close to the truth regarding people of an age capable of working. And I agree we have a very real problem with all this money printing, and there is the added problem that there is no sign anyone is going to stop printing it.

I would also suggest that inequality is an even worse problem. The wealth of Bezoz has risen by something like 40 billion in two months That is ridiculous, and it is at the expense of a number of the small. The effects of the virus have played into Amazon's hands, and a vast number of small business people and their workers are quietly going broke. And nobody is even trying to slow this down.

Ian, that economic inequality you mention is all part of the Global Reset plan to enslave humanity.

Anni wrote: "Ian, that economic inequality you mention is all part of the Global Reset plan to enslave humanity."

Anni, I don't think there's a plan. That would require planning and a degree of cleverness. I think it is simply uncontrolled greed and thoughtless disregard for anyone else. But whether there is a plan or not, the endgame may well be the same, and if you are right they are about a third of the way there.

As an example of what I mean, feudalism and serfdom arose because of debt. There was a limited amount of land, and once people got into debt they had to sell their small holdings and they and their offspring had to work for their Lord for mere survival. What we are seeing is the concentration of wealth that will create new Lords, except they won't call themselves that.

Ian J Miller, I apologise if I am being rude, but who cares about how many Americans died? I am sadly used to our NZ news outlets who seem to think that giving the American instance of a disease gives some kind of valuable information about the rest of the world! Absolutely not compared to for instance, New Zealand, which has a population a tiny fraction of the US one.

Ian J Miller, It had absolutely nothing to do with "have not bothered", please don't be so rude. I have already mentioned why it was impossible for me to sit inside on my chuff for 7-8 weeks (no computer to order food online etc), I live alone.

Debby, I would think that a lot of Americans care about how many Americans die. I am not sure what you mean about "have not bothered" but if I have upset you in any way, I apologise. It was not my intention.

For what it is worth, I live alone too. I seldom get to talk to anyone else more than once a week.

Back to IFRs. In the latest edition of "Science" there is a report on the mathematics of the SARS-Cov-2 virus impacts, and it has some IFRs, amongst a lot of other stuff.

For high income countries, if there is unlimited health care the expectation IFR range is 0.7 - 1.2%, and the highest part of the range is 1.65 %. If the health care is limited, the expectation range is 0.9 - 1.7%, and the highest part of the range is 2.7%. These figures are significantly higher than the 0.2% that were mentioned previously.

The use of the word "expectation" is mine, borrowed from physics, and it indicates a sort of average probability. The virus is dangerous.

Ian, you say the virus is dangerous - but statistics show it’s no more so than the flu - and the coming mandatory vaccine will be a lot more deadly, in more ways than one.

but statistics show it’s no more so than the flu - and the coming mandatory vaccine will be a lot more deadly, in more ways than one.

Not to mention the deadly measures they're implementing to supposedly fight this virus.

Everyone seems to forget all the reports on how harmful hand sanitizers are in general: alcohol poisoning, antibiotic resistance, hormonal disruption, weaker immune system, skin problems, etc.

The FDA even recalled 77 brands that contain the very harmful substance, methanol, yet the schools, if and when the open plan to constantly "disinfect" them all throughout the day.

Ian wrote: "Back to IFRs. In the latest edition of "Science" there is a report on the mathematics of the SARS-Cov-2 virus impacts, and it has some IFRs, amongst a lot of other stuff.

For high income countries..."

No idea how you got 2.7% IFR, Ian...and you never provided a link, but I think I was the one that posted the most recent Science article on the fatality rate and it listed a 0.4% IFR...I assume you looked incorrectly at perhaps IFR for over 90 year olds or something like that.

However, I'm pleased to see this group has had some influence on you and you are FINALLY now focused on the crucial IFR and are quoting studies based on data (after formerly saying there was "no data" on this virus). You're becoming more science-based and less fear based by the day! At this rate you might even befriend some of society's young people you formerly called selfish after saying they were all trying to kill you by spreading the virus :)

Anni wrote: "Ian, you say the virus is dangerous - but statistics show it’s no more so than the flu - and the coming mandatory vaccine will be a lot more deadly, in more ways than one."

You're right Anni, or thereabouts.

Consider this excerpt from Reason.com where they analyze the fatality rates (including note that Utah has a IFR of only 0.1%): "COVID-19 is clearly deadlier than the seasonal flu, but it does not seem to be nearly as deadly as the "Spanish flu" of 1918, contrary to the worst-case scenarios that had a profound impact on policy makers early in the epidemic. Even the CDC's revised IFR estimate is substantially lower than the rates assumed in some of those projections."

https://reason.com/2020/07/23/there-i...

For any members living in New Zealand - watch this and weep.
Your country is being taken over.

https://youtu.be/Gu7AbcKTSM8

Anni wrote: "For any members living in New Zealand - watch this and weep.
Your country is being taken over.

https://youtu.be/Gu7AbcKTSM8"

Well, as for "strange things" we have someone living in NZ (allegedly) who cannot recall the name of the Prime Minister (Jacinda Ardern) and claims that she is linked somehow to Bill Gates, provides a picture of Gates and a woman being interviewed, but the woman is NOT the PM. Hardly good news. Then he has a moan about visitors having to go into quarantine for two weeks. We all had to be locked down for more than four weeks so these poor people are locked down for two weeks in a luxury hotel, and the statement about the food is just nonsense. That youtube clip[ is simply crap.

James, sorry, I said it was the latest issue of "Science". Specifically, vol 369, pp 413 - 422. I meant to include that but somehow I overlooked it.

The reason I did not mention IFRs before was because I had not found a reference that included the methodology of how they got them. This one did. More to the point, it is the first that I am aware of which shows the variability of it with respect to environment. Your best chances are to be a citizen of a low income country with unlimited health care. That is probably because in low income countries the citizens are younger and fitter. There is evidence that teh virus becomes more severe as the BMI increases. Readers, therefore, may wish to improve their chances by losing weight :-)

Ian wrote: "Anni wrote: "For any members living in New Zealand - watch this and weep.
Your country is being taken over.

https://youtu.be/Gu7AbcKTSM8"

Well, as for "strange things" we have someone living in N..."

"That youtube clip is simply crap." - Couldn't agree more Ian. Perhaps he'd prefer to give up his NZ residency and return to America? BTW have you noticed our immigration people tend to hand out residency status to some very dodgy characters. The main qualification seems to be how much money they have, not whether they are honest or trustworthy or will do right by Kiwis.

Yeah, Lance. The criterion for residence is really weird - you don't actually have to reside as long as you have oodles of cash. I suppose the only good thing is they have to behave as they can be deported if they engage in bad behaviour.

Ian wrote: "Yeah, Lance. The criterion for residence is really weird - you don't actually have to reside as long as you have oodles of cash. I suppose the only good thing is they have to behave as they can be ..."

You mean like that eastern European (Yugoslav?) drug pusher/kickboxer who is still here thanks to our recently sacked Immigration Minister? I don't see too many bad eggs being deported under our current Leftie govt.

Agreed, Lance. However, in principle it is possible.

Like I said Ian, I'm glad you're finally ready to talk actual fatality rates (IFR) and acknowledge the data that exists and is being obsessively analyzed by the world's leading infectious disease specialists all over the world. I've been trying to ask for a scientific discussion in this group for months...

Despite rising death toll, Ron DeSantis says COVID-19 trends are good https://floridapolitics.com/archives/...

According to independent data scientist and MIT graduate Youyang Gu, Florida has an implied infection fatality rate of 0.15%, the lowest of all states with more than 1,000 infections per day.

Nationally, the implied IFR is 0.27%. The IFR measures the mortality rate based on all presumed COVID-19 cases rather than by those that have been specifically confirmed, which causes the rate to be much lower.

Perhaps another thing to consider with the official story of this virus, is that if it was circulating in Europe and South America almost a year before its detection in Wuhan, then how was it treated for all that time? There's no way something like the Spanish Flu would not be detected immediately as something separate to the ordinary flu (as it'd obviously be killing too many)...But something with say a 0.2% IFR could go unnoticed for quote some time? Especially as Corona symptoms and Influenza symptoms are near identical...

The coronavirus may not have originated in China, says Oxford professor https://www.sciencefocus.com/news/the...
Dr Tom Jefferson called for investigation into the presence of SARS-CoV-2 in sewage, as traces have been found that pre-date China's first COVID-19 case.

Traces of COVID-19 have been found in sewage samples from Spain, Italy and Brazil which pre-date its discovery in China.

James wrote: " if it was circulating in Europe and South America almost a year before its detection in Wuhan, then how was it treated for all that time?"

I seem to recall making a similar point but coming to a different conclusion, namely the if is wrong, and the so-called tests were picking up something else. IO see you are persisting with the 0.2%. I prefer to go with the Science article, which has a peer-reviewed description of the methodology in getting to it.

I gave 0.2% as a mere example of a low fatality rate virus (not even this one but any virus) that could potentially go detected unnoticed for quite some time. You could equally give another example like 0.1% or 0.27%, take your pick.

However, my point was, any super deadly virus (say with high IFR like the Spanish Flu) surely would not go undetected...Sooner rather than later, doctors would at least start saying "a mystery new unknown virus is killing people by the truckload"...Excess deaths would be quickly revealed in the stats also.

So I agree with that Oxford professor above calling for a comprehensive investigation into the presence of SARS-CoV-2 in sewage from those March 2019 samples in Spain, Italy and Brazil. That might be crucial to figuring this out -- i.e. We may have been doing the Swedish Herd immunity approach for 8 or 9 months already without realizing it...

Also note that I never made any "conclusion" as you say, I said IF if it was circulating in Europe and South America almost a year before (then Houston, we have a problem in the official story of the virus beginnings and how long it's been with the human race). Otherwise, if it ultimately turns out that teams of scientists at universities in three separate nations all had contaminated samples (or similar errors) then obviously there'll nothing to talk about and we go back to the virus originating in China in the lab or else in the seafood market.

Ian wrote: "For high income countries, if there is unlimited health care the expectation IFR range is 0.7 - 1.2%, and the highest part of the range is 1.65 %. If the health care is limited, the expectation range is 0.9 - 1.7%, and the highest part of the range is 2.7%...."

Ian, I believe I've found the exact Science magazine article you refer to, according to the volume and page numbers you list https://science.sciencemag.org/conten....

But I can't find a clear IFR according to data (I mean a standard IFR no matter differing circumstances like the healthcare of a nation, poverty or wealth of individuals etc). All I can find are "expectations of IFR" according to healthcare policies, weight of individuals and other categories like that... It also mentions "modeled IFR for different World Bank income strata under different scenarios of health care quality and quantity available"...

Whereas what we need for a true IFR is very simple: How many people are likely to already to be infected (not just recorded, as per the CFR) versus how many have died. That's it.

For example, with the Spanish Flu: 20M died at an estimated 500M infected = 4.0% IFR. Or in the modern context, let's say 5M Brits have already been infected (as per the London Imperial College estimates), then the IFR would be 0.01% as almost 50,000 Brits have died.

This Science Magazine article appears (to my eyes at least) to instead be more of a micro analysis of expected or anticipated IFR rates within certain categories or according to numbers of ICU beds available, healthcare limits of nations in poor, middle-income and wealthy nations, etc? Again I could have easily missed wherever you said you found the standard nationwide or worldwide IFR (like the CDC and Stanford estimated) and will be happy to be corrected if you can point me to it.

But as far as I can tell this article doesn't appear at all to be a formal investigation for the actual IFR (population wide average), but rather "the IFR within certain categories" e.g. I could do a study on what is the IFR for elderly left-handed Pygmy people in a part of the Congo where there is a limited healthcare and a lack of ICU beds - and that'd be a type of IFR, but not The IFR for a nation or the planet.

It's a densely written article, especially for reading online, so maybe I'm missing something obvious - feel free to copy the exact part where it states what the IFR actually is (without different categories like healthcare policies), if you think it's there:

The impact of COVID-19 and strategies for mitigation and suppression in low- and middle-income countries
https://science.sciencemag.org/conten...

James, The figures I quoted came from the last graph. The meaning of "expectation" is what you expect to get under a set of assumptions, and the variation depends on the variation of the assumptions. You cannot get an IFR without assumptions regarding who were infected but not confirmed, and that is what gives the variation. The division into different socioeconomic groups appears to result from different weighting to some of the assumptions. The methodology is there, but I could not describe it without using something approximately equivalent to that volume of words.

The reason I give some trust to that is because the peer-review system means others have checked the methodology. The 0.2% you keep quoting has not been given a link with the methodology. The CDC link you quoted actually was based on a non-peer-reviewed link that gave IFRs similar to the mean IFRs in the Science article, as I posted above, and so is not in disagreement.

Ian I'm all about peer-reviewed publications where possible, and real science from official medical bodies, hence why I was only ever mentioning the scientific data and reports from the WHO, CDC etc -- and that's why I have eagerly hunted down the Science article you referenced and have read it carefully. But peer-reviewed stuff takes time as you know, and unfortunately this Science magazine article is not saying what you think it's saying as far as I can see (have now read the final graph and everything else line by line).

The article is instead predicting likely IFR's of future scenarios WITHIN specific categories of people (e.g. low income neighbourhoods, regions with poor healthcare etc) based on all sorts of expectations, assumptions etc (including even public healthcare policy adjustments i.e. politics not strict science). So whilst it may be peer reviewed in terms of that limited analysis, I cannot see any standard IFR. Perhaps that is obvious, in hindsight, in the heading of the article implies an investigation into limited sectors of society: "The impact of COVID-19 and strategies for mitigation and suppression in low- and middle-income countries."

And therefore the IFR estimates I and others in this group previously posted from the likes of the CDC, WHO, Stanford etc, which were not yet peer reviewed but were definitely based on data, are much closer to what we need i.e. a standard worldwide IFR (not based on any limitations or categories or political policies). And note that these IFRs from these infectious disease scientific bodies were never just 0.2% as you're saying, they ranged from 0.1% to as high as 0.67%. Have not seen any higher IFR estimates than that.

And note that a true IFR must always have an estimate factor (and that is not a pseudoscietific estimate). For example, with the Spanish Flu, even 100 years later all we have is an estimate of 500M people were infected. But it is an extremely necessary estimate that must be made for any virus as then we can also estimate how deadly a virus is -- which determines our reaction and political policies.

So if the final IFR turns out to be up there around the Spanish Flu (4%) then risking our economies, democracy and wellbeing of our nation, will be worth it (as leaving the virus unchecked will obviously be a serious risk to citizens wellbeing as well, and probably worse than the damage the measures will take).

However, if it is much lower and more along the lines of the CDC, Stanford, WHO and other's who have predicted IFR's well below 1% and most the same or slightly worse than a bad Influenza season - well then it would have been a complete overreaction and disastrous decision making. And that's an indisputable fact becuase remember seasonal Influenza has an IFR of 0.1-0.3%...Admittedly it's usually closer to 0.1, but as per the extreme (aforementioned) 2017-18 season it sometimes does go as high as 0.3, yet we never as a society never discuss locking down or quarantining people for this - why? Because it's not deemed to be deadly enough and is basically the antithesis of the Spanish Flu...

Now the R0 factor is the only other aspect worth analyzing here in this equation, I suspect. Data so far indicates it is more contagious than the flu, but not by much. But similarly to the IFR, were the R0 to radically increase with more analysis, then more caution would obviously need to be taken.

So it's really a simple mathematical analysis job from here. All the rhetoric, emotion, regurgitation of media narratives, fearmongering, anti-scientific assumptions etc, can all be left behind.

Wow, this study out of India today mentions an even lower IFR (lowest I've come across so far) and this would actually be the equivalent of a remarkably good Influenza season's IFR (less than 0.01%!)

57% of Mumbai slum dwellers were exposed to Covid, developed antibodies, finds sero survey https://theprint.in/health/57-of-mumb...
With just 16% of the non-slums developing antibodies, focus is moving to these areas to contain spread of Covid. A second phase will follow up with everyone tested in a month.

New Delhi: More than half of Mumbai’s slum population has already been exposed to Covid-19 virus and has developed antibodies against it, a sero-surveillance survey conducted by the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) has found.

The survey, conducted in the first week of July by the BMC, NITI Aayog and the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research (TIFR) found 57 per cent of the samples from slums and 16 per cent from non-slums had Covid-19 antibodies.

“Taking together the current prevalence (estimated here) and records from BMC on reported deaths, the infection fatality rate (IFR) is likely to be very low (0.05-0.1%),” it further said.

James, the point of the fatality probability is that it is highly dependent on the nature of the population. It is almost harmless to ten year olds, about 20% death rate to the old. Whether a lockdown is worthwhile depends (a) on how efficiently it is done - if it leaks, it was a waste of effort, and (b) how you value life. If everyone does it efficiently at the same time you have an economic hiccup of about 5-6 weeks, and that is survivable. If it is not efficient, you have severely damaged your economy for no purpose.

We have reached the point where further estimates are not going to be helpful. The fatality rate will be what it will be. Let us come back in a year and see what has happened.

Ian wrote: "James, the point of the fatality probability is that it is highly dependent on the nature of the population. It is almost harmless to ten year olds, about 20% death rate to the old. Whether a lockd..."

Again there Ian, you're moving far away from science back into the media-driven narrative you have accepted i.e. "we DEFINITELY need a lockdown" (without justifying scientifically why this virus is categorically proven to be deadly enough for that requirement - a requirement that is risking our economies, capitalism and even Western democracy potentially).

And here was me thinking we'd made a major breakthru recently finally getting you to understand the difference between CFR (which you were formerly quoting non-stop with your 5% fatality statements) and the all important IFR...

The infectious disease specialists like the CDC have repeatedly said it's crucial to find out a precise IFR (albeit an estimate, which IFR's always are) - that's why I am indicating to you that you're inadvertently slipping into pseudoscience with a total reluctance to consider the exact fatality rate or even care about it. Instead, you're coming from the "narrative", which let's never forget was begun by modelling in the London Imperial College which said we must lockdown because...Guess why? Because they said the fatality rate in their modelling showed this virus would have an IFR fatality rate of 3-4% (about 20 times what the latest estimates, based on real data, are showing). And notice how none of our media have mentioned that? Because the overall narrative has been set and seemingly no amount of scientific facts to the contrary will make most people question it... Maybe that's also why at some point most media reports have shifted by mentioning the number of deaths, to instead reporting on the number of cases...

When or if you are prepared to discuss the science again, and simply stick to the facts especially the IFR rates, and comparing if this is much closer to Influenza (as all IFR estimates/predictions from the major medical bodies so far estimate) OR if there will be a surprise and it turns out to be a Spanish Flu mega virus, then by all means come back...

I think it was Mark Twain, or maybe someone else, who said "it's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled" -- Is that perhaps what we are dealing with in 2020?

James, as I said the lockdown, if properly done, is a way of eliminating the virus. It is logical and scientific that if the virus cannot replicate it dies out. In science, you estimate to provide guidelines, but that is the only purpose of worrying about IFRs, To me, the important issue is to decide what to do. The danger with considering this virus as a flu is that with the flu we can protect those who wish with vaccines. Science is busy trying to get a vaccine, and maybe they will, but we don't know they will.

Science is a methodology. So far there is too much we don't know. We don't know if there are cumulative effects, there is mild evidence you can get it again after about three months, it is possible the repeats may occur if the virus can become dormant and reappear, we know the virus destroys cells, but we don't know which ones other than the lung cells, we know that about 17 million people have been confirmed with the virus, and just under 10 million have recovered so the death rate among confirmed cases has a way to go before we know what it is.

I never said we definitely need a lockdown. I said a properly executed lockdown everywhere at the same time would have eradicated the virus. We didn't get it, so it is probably off the table in most places now. We must simply wait and see what happens, and acknowledge it will be with us hereafter. Remember, it affects the older people much worse and we all get old, or don't, and that is a poor alternative.

As for the science, there is a lot more to the science of this virus than IFRs. When you say "if there will be a surprise and it turns out to be a Spanish Flu mega virus, then by all means come back.." I can take a hint.

The True Face of Covid-19: Fear and “Shock Therapy” to Impose a Totalitarian Society? https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-tru...
By Dr. Pascal Sacré (physician)

After several months of the COVID-19 crisis, relevant elements of analysis of this crisis are becoming clearer.

1. The enormous pressure to convince 7 billion people of the need to be vaccinated against a virus [1] whose mortality has been inflated [2] and which is said to be ubiquitous while it is disappearing or has even disappeared.

It reminds us of the 2009 operation, with the fake H1N1 pandemic [3]: same tactics, same complicity (media, political, government), same “experts”, same scenarios, same narratives with an emphasis on fear, guilt, haste and always the same stench of this omnipresent money in the form of huge profits on the horizon for the Big Pharma vaccine producing industry.

It is as if the H1N1 episode of 2009 has been used as a rehearsal.

This time, the COVID-19 episode of 2020 is poised to turn the trial into a success?

2. People submitting to authority

Despite clear signs of corruption, incompetence, ignorance about eminent personalities in politics, science, medicine, many people continue to obey them.

Despite confused, contradictory, unexplained, unjustifiable recommendations, people accept the directive of higher authority.