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

[R.O.]

Kan Fluks of iemand reageren hierop?


On 22-06-2021 22:00, R.O. wrote:
> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> D66 mailing list
> D66 at tuxtown.net
> http://www.tuxtown.net/mailman/listinfo/d66
>