[D66] [JD: 120] Is covid-19 een A-ziekte bij een IFR van ~0.15% ? Nee.

[R.O.]

PS

opm:  Sars ligt bij 11%, Ebola tussen 25-90%, MERS is 34%.
      (Dit is de CFR, IFR zal iets lager zijn maar nog vele malen hoger
dan Covid-19))


On 22-06-2021 21:47, R.O. wrote:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_disease_case_fatality_rates
> https://ourworldindata.org/mortality-risk-covid?country=~NLD
> 
> De grafiek geeft voor NL momenteel een CFR van 1%.
> 
> Dat is de case fatality rate, maar we willen de IFR weten. Daar staat
> dat de IFR 2% is.
> 
> Dus indien (2% < IFR <= 0.15%) dan is Covid-19 zeker geen A-ziekte.
> 
> Sars ligt bij 11%, Ebola tussen 25-90%, MERS is 34%.
> 
> Einde discussie. Alle maatregelen kunnen per direct van tafel inclusief
> de massavaccinatie.
> 
> 
> 
> On 22-06-2021 21:23, R.O. wrote:
>> https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/eci.13554
>>
>>
>>
>> Background
>>
>> Estimates of community spread and infection fatality rate (IFR) of
>> COVID-19 have varied across studies. Efforts to synthesize the evidence
>> reach seemingly discrepant conclusions.
>>
>> Methods
>>
>> Systematic evaluations of seroprevalence studies that had no
>> restrictions based on country and which estimated either total number of
>> people infected and/or aggregate IFRs were identified. Information was
>> extracted and compared on eligibility criteria, searches, amount of
>> evidence included, corrections/adjustments of seroprevalence and death
>> counts, quantitative syntheses and handling of heterogeneity, main
>> estimates and global representativeness.
>> Results
>>
>> Six systematic evaluations were eligible. Each combined data from 10 to
>> 338 studies (9-50 countries), because of different eligibility criteria.
>> Two evaluations had some overt flaws in data, violations of stated
>> eligibility criteria and biased eligibility criteria (eg excluding
>> studies with few deaths) that consistently inflated IFR estimates.
>> Perusal of quantitative synthesis methods also exhibited several
>> challenges and biases. Global representativeness was low with 78%-100%
>> of the evidence coming from Europe or the Americas; the two most
>> problematic evaluations considered only one study from other continents.
>> Allowing for these caveats, four evaluations largely agreed in their
>> main final estimates for global spread of the pandemic and the other two
>> evaluations would also agree after correcting overt flaws and biases.
>>
>> Conclusions
>>
>> All systematic evaluations of seroprevalence data converge that
>> SARS-CoV-2 infection is widely spread globally. Acknowledging residual
>> uncertainties, the available evidence suggests average global IFR of
>> ~0.15% and ~1.5-2.0 billion infections by February 2021 with substantial
>> differences in IFR and in infection spread across continents, countries
>> and locations.
>>
>>
>> On 22-06-2021 21:18, R.O. wrote:
>>> We weten inmiddels dat de IFR in een Standford University meta analyse
>>> over ca. 2 miljard positief geteste personen wereldwijd, is bijgesteld
>>> tot 0.15, zie LINK. Eerder bevestigde de WHO ook als dat de IFR was
>>> bijgesteld tot 0,23, zie LINK.
>> _______________________________________________
>> D66 mailing list
>> D66 at tuxtown.net
>> http://www.tuxtown.net/mailman/listinfo/d66
>>
> _______________________________________________
> D66 mailing list
> D66 at tuxtown.net
> http://www.tuxtown.net/mailman/listinfo/d66
>