Cyprus-Forum.com

[Paphitis]

An inspiring article by Kelly Brogan, M.D.

Why We Stay Asleep When Covid-19 Is Trying to Wake Us Up

https://kellybroganmd.com/why-we-stay-a ... ake-us-up/

Thanks!

This is what a lot of people are now seeing but are too scared to rock the boat at this stage.

I have witnessed people in the beginning taking this very seriously, to now shrugging their shoulders and mocking the entire situation and just going on as per normal as much as is possible and behaving in ways as if the Chy-na Virus doesn't exist. To clarify, we all know it exists, but most people don't believe it is as serious as the media are portraying.

People are asking questions though. Lot's of questions. Similar to the questions you ask, from Big Pharma, Gates, Chy-na, is the Virus man made etc etc.

I have heard from an expert and a lot of this stuff is mentioned in certain parts, that COVID-17 is nothing more than an evolved influenza, however, COVID-19 has elements of SARS and HIV. I am no expert, but I would like to know how biological elements of SARS and HIV were able to combine with COVID-17 to form this new COVID-19.

Another factor no one seems to be talking about. The timing of all this, in a US Election year could be nothing, but might also not be. The viciousness of the fake media is now out there for all to see. But Trump goes from strength to strength because people are seeing right through all of this.

[erolz66]

As to how long it takes to attain herd immunity, I will leave the answer to an expert, Dr. Knut M. Wittkowski, the former chief biostatistician and epidemiologist at Rockefeller University Hospital:

All respiratory epidemics end when 80 percent of all people have become immune. Then if a new person gets infected, the person doesn’t find anybody else to infect. The best strategy you can do is isolate the old and fragile people — make sure that nobody visits the nursing homes — then let the children go to school and let people go to work. … They have a mild disease. Then they become immune, and after two or three weeks the epidemic is over.

https://nypost.com/2020/03/28/new-yorke ... eakeasies/

If he’s right, you just need to isolate the vulnerable for two to three weeks.

If he is right. So is he right ? Have you done any critical thinking for yourself as to if you think he is right ? Any at all ? Or are you just deciding he is right because it fits with your position that targeted testing of vulnerable groups is a better approach than generic measures to slow spread ? Have you done anything long the lines of

So he says that "respiratory epidemics end when 80 percent of all people have become immune" and that this takes " two or three weeks the epidemic is over". So how could this assertion be tested ? If Corona virus follows this pattern what sort of % of the population should we being seeing testing positive for antibodies, in places like Sweden that has had next to no anti spread lock down measures, given that we are 2-3 months in ? Should we not be seeing 80% of population testing positive for antibodies or close to it ? Are we seeing that in Sweden from the latest test , using the largest and most random / average test groups ? I am not talking about estimates based on 'modelling' of which you have promoted many here coming up with guesses that 50% or more of the population have already been infected. I mean actual anti body testing of significant subsets of the population. Are we seeing from these any where even close to the claimed 80% that is typically achieved within 2 - 3 week according Wittkowski ? Or are we in fact seeing numbers an order of magnitude lower or closer to such as antibody testing becomes more widespread ? In places like Sweden, Spain, Italy and New York. So if the best numbers we have from actual testing in some of the worse affect areas to date are not showing any where near the 80% after 2-3 months, then where does that leave Wittkowski claim ?

His numbers do not add up against what is known and you simply to not care Tim.

Nor do they add up if you think critically and do the numbers 'backwards' from your claimed consensus IFR figure of 0.37%. Sweden population 10.23 million. 80% infection required for herd immunity according to Wittkowski. Of that 80% 0.37% will die (IFR), meaning if 80% has been reached there should be 30,280 deaths in Sweden. Current figures are 3,925. Discrepancies all over the place yet you seem not to care one iota ? Why is that Tim. Why did 'discrepancy' between ONS numbers on deaths all causes vs those attributed to covid-19 become so majorly important to you, yet discrepancies like these seem to not even register with you at all ?

It’s interesting to ponder why Wittkowski’s opinions are being censored:

https://nypost.com/2020/05/16/youtube-c ... -lockdown/

Who doesn’t want you to know and why?

There is no need to ponder at all. You tubes guidelines are simple and clear.

including content that explicitly disputes the efficacy of global or local healthy authority recommended guidance on social distancing that may lead others to act against that guidance.

That is why his videos have been removed from youtube. Nothing to ponder here. Nor is youtube the only place such mavericks can share their views and opinions to those willing to suck them out without any critical thought of their own, as you yourself have shown and proven. He is not being silenced because if he had been silenced to any degree of effectiveness you would not be touting him as one of your preferred experts.

-----------------

I have indulged you one last time Tim. Not in my expert is better than yours but in your expert does not pass the test of using critical thinking to measure his claims against the best simple data we have. I will not be bothering again. You will continue to thrown expert after expert after expert that support what you believed from before there being any data to go on and will continue to refuse to measure any of them and their claims against what is known or best estimates we have.

[erolz66]

... I will not concede that the measure of total deaths all causes is of a materially different nature to things like R and IFR...

As you say, it is the measure of total deaths, and since the increase in total deaths far exceeds the number of deaths attributed to Covid-19, which are inflated figures including many who died with and not of the virus, there must be other factors at work. Could the following be one of them?

So you state as fact that covid death figures are 'inflated' because they "including many who died with and not of the virus". So do you think it is impossible that the figures could also included people who died of the virus but where it was not mentioned on the death certificate (which is the criteria ONS are using) ? It is your 'one way' vision that I have a problem with. You ONLY look for or consider factors that support your pre chosen position and ignore anything on the other side of the equation. As time goes on more and more experts are concluding that the died from covid-19 figures are under counted not over. You clearly think this is impossible but it is not. You do the same below

Doctors at John Muir Medical Center in Walnut Creek say they have seen more deaths by suicide during this quarantine period than deaths from the COVID-19 virus.

https://abc7news.com/suicide-covid-19-c ... y/6201962/

Yes increase in suicide is a possible explanation for why the number of excess deaths all causes is different from deaths where covid-19 is mentioned on the death certificate. But all you do is ask the question and find a single expert out of 10,000s of such that support this theory. You do not apply any test to it. Just seek out confirmation support and nothing else. Some of the best data on deaths by suicides across a whole nation is from Japan. There they have seen a 30% drop in deaths from suicides up to the end of April. These again are not 'extrapolated up' numbers, they are just total counts done by the same people and methods that have been doing such counts for years and decades. Yet this evidence is worthless to you vs your chosen experts opinion from a tiny subset of total numbers apparently. You ignore the 'hardest' numbers we have on this and select some of the softest as suits.

Even ignoring experts totally just use your common sense. In week 16 the 'discrepancy' between total excess deaths all causes and deaths where covid-19 was mentioned on the death certificate is around 3000. Do you really think that if a significant proportion of this unexplained 3000 deaths were from suicide in single week would not know that already ? The 'normal' amount of suicides in a week in UK (not just England and wales) is around 110. So if increased suicides account for even a third of the 3k 'discrepancy' seen in week 16 then that would represent an order of magnitude increase in suicides in a single week. You think if this is what has actually happened in reality we would not know about it ?

The bottom line remains, regardless of what the excess deaths we are seeing are caused by or from and to what degree, the numbers from all causes show that this event is leading to excess deaths in weekly figures the like of which have not been seen for at least 50 years and probably for 100. This is just known fact for England and Wales. All you have is yeah but these massive once in a lifetime increases are not from the virus, they are from people committing suicide because they could only leave their house to shop and exercise or they were put on furlough at 80% salary. The biggest cause of excess deaths all causes being higher than deaths where covid-19 is mention on the death certificate and ignoring deaths from covid-19 where it is NOT mentioned on the death certificate, will be from people not seeking treatment early enough. This will show up more in the later weeks than the early ones by definition. What we also know about these kinds of deaths is that they are not being caused by people not being allowed to seek treatment when they need to but by people choosing to not do so. We know this because we see exactly the same degrees of 'discrepancy' between total deaths all causes vs deaths where covid-19 is on the death certificate in places like Sweden as we see in places like the UK.

You will not hear or listen or engage with any of the above. You have not done so to date so why would I expect you to do so in the future.

[Kikapu]

When the lockdowns were proposed and then implemented, many here who were/are anti lockdown, considered lockdowns as being Human Rights violations. However, they proposing lockdown only on the high risk groups, whomever they may be as there is no definite class of high risk groups and non high risk groups, we are now no longer hearing violation of Human Rights by the anti lockdown groups. I don’t believe anyone is for a lockdown, but what options did we have when so little was know on Covid-19, and after Wuhan was under a lockdown and as we believed that the virus was contained within the boundaries of Wuhan, we all had to try out the lockdown.

Has it worked? We don’t know as we still had deaths. Would it have been worse without the lockdown? Probably. Was it worth shutting down the economy for the sake of lockdown? It remains to be seen as we are still no where near having a vaccine for Covid-19. Personally, anti lockdown groups have over used Sweden as an example model what what we should have all done, and it may have been warranted in the early days, but as Erol pointed out, in the last 7 days, Sweden has become the worst case example in the question of lockdown or no lockdown. The trajectory of Sweden is only heading in the wrong direction as the case with Brazil.

The situation with Covid-19 is very fluid as the numbers keep shifting rapidly, therefore anyone maintaining constant accuracy what will happen next from what had already happened cannot be 100% right all the time. Only couple of weeks ago the percentage of death on the Case Fatality Rate (CFR) has gone up from 7% to 14%. What will it be two weeks from now? I don’t know, but the trajectory doesn’t look good on those who might now or in the near future get infected with Covid-19.

Actually, the 14% is from the John Hopkins data, but as to my calculations, it is still around 7%.

Infection Fatality Rate is 0.26% – CDC

On May 15th, the Center for Disease Control (CDC) in the US published its official estimate – 0.26%, although it doesn’t come right out and say it. Rather, it estimates the case fatality rate (CFR) for different age groups:

0-49 year-olds: 0.05%
50-64 year-olds: 0.2%
65+ years-old: 1.3%
Mean CFR: 0.4%

The CDC estimates that 35% of people who’ve been infected are asymptomatic, so to get the IFR from the CFR you have to multiply it by 0.65 – 0.4 x 0.65 = 0.26%.

You are ignoring the percentages of the dead from CFR to which is what I wrote and instead, you want to write about percentages of likelihood or unlikelihood of becoming in the IFR and then to CFR stats. Seems to me you want to whitewash the percentage of the dead from CFR.

[cyprusgrump]

When the lockdowns were proposed and then implemented, many here who were/are anti lockdown, considered lockdowns as being Human Rights violations. However, they proposing lockdown only on the high risk groups, whomever they may be as there is no definite class of high risk groups and non high risk groups, we are now no longer hearing violation of Human Rights by the anti lockdown groups. I don’t believe anyone is for a lockdown, but what options did we have when so little was know on Covid-19, and after Wuhan was under a lockdown and as we believed that the virus was contained within the boundaries of Wuhan, we all had to try out the lockdown.

Has it worked? We don’t know as we still had deaths. Would it have been worse without the lockdown? Probably. Was it worth shutting down the economy for the sake of lockdown? It remains to be seen as we are still no where near having a vaccine for Covid-19. Personally, anti lockdown groups have over used Sweden as an example model what what we should have all done, and it may have been warranted in the early days, but as Erol pointed out, in the last 7 days, Sweden has become the worst case example in the question of lockdown or no lockdown. The trajectory of Sweden is only heading in the wrong direction as the case with Brazil.

The situation with Covid-19 is very fluid as the numbers keep shifting rapidly, therefore anyone maintaining constant accuracy what will happen next from what had already happened cannot be 100% right all the time. Only couple of weeks ago the percentage of death on the Case Fatality Rate (CFR) has gone up from 7% to 14%. What will it be two weeks from now? I don’t know, but the trajectory doesn’t look good on those who might now or in the near future get infected with Covid-19.

Actually, the 14% is from the John Hopkins data, but as to my calculations, it is still around 7%.

Infection Fatality Rate is 0.26% – CDC

On May 15th, the Center for Disease Control (CDC) in the US published its official estimate – 0.26%, although it doesn’t come right out and say it. Rather, it estimates the case fatality rate (CFR) for different age groups:

0-49 year-olds: 0.05%
50-64 year-olds: 0.2%
65+ years-old: 1.3%
Mean CFR: 0.4%

The CDC estimates that 35% of people who’ve been infected are asymptomatic, so to get the IFR from the CFR you have to multiply it by 0.65 – 0.4 x 0.65 = 0.26%.

You are ignoring the percentages of the dead from CFR to which is what I wrote and instead, you want to write about percentages of likelihood or unlikelihood of becoming in the IFR and then to CFR stats. Seems to me you want to whitewash the percentage of the dead from CFR.

[Kikapu]

When the lockdowns were proposed and then implemented, many here who were/are anti lockdown, considered lockdowns as being Human Rights violations. However, they proposing lockdown only on the high risk groups, whomever they may be as there is no definite class of high risk groups and non high risk groups, we are now no longer hearing violation of Human Rights by the anti lockdown groups. I don’t believe anyone is for a lockdown, but what options did we have when so little was know on Covid-19, and after Wuhan was under a lockdown and as we believed that the virus was contained within the boundaries of Wuhan, we all had to try out the lockdown.

Has it worked? We don’t know as we still had deaths. Would it have been worse without the lockdown? Probably. Was it worth shutting down the economy for the sake of lockdown? It remains to be seen as we are still no where near having a vaccine for Covid-19. Personally, anti lockdown groups have over used Sweden as an example model what what we should have all done, and it may have been warranted in the early days, but as Erol pointed out, in the last 7 days, Sweden has become the worst case example in the question of lockdown or no lockdown. The trajectory of Sweden is only heading in the wrong direction as the case with Brazil.

The situation with Covid-19 is very fluid as the numbers keep shifting rapidly, therefore anyone maintaining constant accuracy what will happen next from what had already happened cannot be 100% right all the time. Only couple of weeks ago the percentage of death on the Case Fatality Rate (CFR) has gone up from 7% to 14%. What will it be two weeks from now? I don’t know, but the trajectory doesn’t look good on those who might now or in the near future get infected with Covid-19.

Actually, the 14% is from the John Hopkins data, but as to my calculations, it is still around 7%.

Infection Fatality Rate is 0.26% – CDC

On May 15th, the Center for Disease Control (CDC) in the US published its official estimate – 0.26%, although it doesn’t come right out and say it. Rather, it estimates the case fatality rate (CFR) for different age groups:

0-49 year-olds: 0.05%
50-64 year-olds: 0.2%
65+ years-old: 1.3%
Mean CFR: 0.4%

The CDC estimates that 35% of people who’ve been infected are asymptomatic, so to get the IFR from the CFR you have to multiply it by 0.65 – 0.4 x 0.65 = 0.26%.

You are ignoring the percentages of the dead from CFR to which is what I wrote and instead, you want to write about percentages of likelihood or unlikelihood of becoming in the IFR and then to CFR stats. Seems to me you want to whitewash the percentage of the dead from CFR.

Cases 5,322,358
Dead 340,290
= 6.39%

[cyprusgrump]

When the lockdowns were proposed and then implemented, many here who were/are anti lockdown, considered lockdowns as being Human Rights violations. However, they proposing lockdown only on the high risk groups, whomever they may be as there is no definite class of high risk groups and non high risk groups, we are now no longer hearing violation of Human Rights by the anti lockdown groups. I don’t believe anyone is for a lockdown, but what options did we have when so little was know on Covid-19, and after Wuhan was under a lockdown and as we believed that the virus was contained within the boundaries of Wuhan, we all had to try out the lockdown.

Has it worked? We don’t know as we still had deaths. Would it have been worse without the lockdown? Probably. Was it worth shutting down the economy for the sake of lockdown? It remains to be seen as we are still no where near having a vaccine for Covid-19. Personally, anti lockdown groups have over used Sweden as an example model what what we should have all done, and it may have been warranted in the early days, but as Erol pointed out, in the last 7 days, Sweden has become the worst case example in the question of lockdown or no lockdown. The trajectory of Sweden is only heading in the wrong direction as the case with Brazil.

The situation with Covid-19 is very fluid as the numbers keep shifting rapidly, therefore anyone maintaining constant accuracy what will happen next from what had already happened cannot be 100% right all the time. Only couple of weeks ago the percentage of death on the Case Fatality Rate (CFR) has gone up from 7% to 14%. What will it be two weeks from now? I don’t know, but the trajectory doesn’t look good on those who might now or in the near future get infected with Covid-19.

Actually, the 14% is from the John Hopkins data, but as to my calculations, it is still around 7%.

Infection Fatality Rate is 0.26% – CDC

On May 15th, the Center for Disease Control (CDC) in the US published its official estimate – 0.26%, although it doesn’t come right out and say it. Rather, it estimates the case fatality rate (CFR) for different age groups:

0-49 year-olds: 0.05%
50-64 year-olds: 0.2%
65+ years-old: 1.3%
Mean CFR: 0.4%

The CDC estimates that 35% of people who’ve been infected are asymptomatic, so to get the IFR from the CFR you have to multiply it by 0.65 – 0.4 x 0.65 = 0.26%.

You are ignoring the percentages of the dead from CFR to which is what I wrote and instead, you want to write about percentages of likelihood or unlikelihood of becoming in the IFR and then to CFR stats. Seems to me you want to whitewash the percentage of the dead from CFR.

Cases 5,322,358
Dead 340,290
= 6.39%

Yes, I realise where you get the number from Kiks...

But you are making the assumption that there are no people who caught the disease but didn't know they had it or had only mild symptoms that didn't require medical intervention...

I'm fairly sure that The CDC would have data that indicates what %'age of the population that falls into that category. You know, based on previous epidemics and stuff...

Ultimately, as you said once before we'll have to wait until the fat lady sings to find out if you are right or the WHO, CDC, etc. with much lower figures...

[Kikapu]

When the lockdowns were proposed and then implemented, many here who were/are anti lockdown, considered lockdowns as being Human Rights violations. However, they proposing lockdown only on the high risk groups, whomever they may be as there is no definite class of high risk groups and non high risk groups, we are now no longer hearing violation of Human Rights by the anti lockdown groups. I don’t believe anyone is for a lockdown, but what options did we have when so little was know on Covid-19, and after Wuhan was under a lockdown and as we believed that the virus was contained within the boundaries of Wuhan, we all had to try out the lockdown.

Has it worked? We don’t know as we still had deaths. Would it have been worse without the lockdown? Probably. Was it worth shutting down the economy for the sake of lockdown? It remains to be seen as we are still no where near having a vaccine for Covid-19. Personally, anti lockdown groups have over used Sweden as an example model what what we should have all done, and it may have been warranted in the early days, but as Erol pointed out, in the last 7 days, Sweden has become the worst case example in the question of lockdown or no lockdown. The trajectory of Sweden is only heading in the wrong direction as the case with Brazil.

The situation with Covid-19 is very fluid as the numbers keep shifting rapidly, therefore anyone maintaining constant accuracy what will happen next from what had already happened cannot be 100% right all the time. Only couple of weeks ago the percentage of death on the Case Fatality Rate (CFR) has gone up from 7% to 14%. What will it be two weeks from now? I don’t know, but the trajectory doesn’t look good on those who might now or in the near future get infected with Covid-19.

Actually, the 14% is from the John Hopkins data, but as to my calculations, it is still around 7%.

Infection Fatality Rate is 0.26% – CDC

On May 15th, the Center for Disease Control (CDC) in the US published its official estimate – 0.26%, although it doesn’t come right out and say it. Rather, it estimates the case fatality rate (CFR) for different age groups:

0-49 year-olds: 0.05%
50-64 year-olds: 0.2%
65+ years-old: 1.3%
Mean CFR: 0.4%

The CDC estimates that 35% of people who’ve been infected are asymptomatic, so to get the IFR from the CFR you have to multiply it by 0.65 – 0.4 x 0.65 = 0.26%.

You are ignoring the percentages of the dead from CFR to which is what I wrote and instead, you want to write about percentages of likelihood or unlikelihood of becoming in the IFR and then to CFR stats. Seems to me you want to whitewash the percentage of the dead from CFR.

Cases 5,322,358
Dead 340,290
= 6.39%

Yes, I realise where you get the number from Kiks...

But you are making the assumption that there are no people who caught the disease but didn't know they had it or had only mild symptoms that didn't require medical intervention...

I'm fairly sure that The CDC would have data that indicates what %'age of the population that falls into that category. You know, based on previous epidemics and stuff...

Ultimately, as you said once before we'll have to wait until the fat lady sings to find out if you are right or the WHO, CDC, etc. with much lower figures...

We already know, that about 90% of all those tested for Covid-19 are negative so it is no point including those who may have been exposed to the virus but had little or no symptoms. As the example I made to Tim recently, that just because most of us have cancer cells in our bodies, it does not make us cancer patients. We know who the cancer patients are and also those who die from cancer. No different with the known Covid-19 patients cases. Of the known cases, 6.39% have died from it. Much lower than cancer patients I may add.

[Paphitis]

When the lockdowns were proposed and then implemented, many here who were/are anti lockdown, considered lockdowns as being Human Rights violations. However, they proposing lockdown only on the high risk groups, whomever they may be as there is no definite class of high risk groups and non high risk groups, we are now no longer hearing violation of Human Rights by the anti lockdown groups. I don’t believe anyone is for a lockdown, but what options did we have when so little was know on Covid-19, and after Wuhan was under a lockdown and as we believed that the virus was contained within the boundaries of Wuhan, we all had to try out the lockdown.

Has it worked? We don’t know as we still had deaths. Would it have been worse without the lockdown? Probably. Was it worth shutting down the economy for the sake of lockdown? It remains to be seen as we are still no where near having a vaccine for Covid-19. Personally, anti lockdown groups have over used Sweden as an example model what what we should have all done, and it may have been warranted in the early days, but as Erol pointed out, in the last 7 days, Sweden has become the worst case example in the question of lockdown or no lockdown. The trajectory of Sweden is only heading in the wrong direction as the case with Brazil.

The situation with Covid-19 is very fluid as the numbers keep shifting rapidly, therefore anyone maintaining constant accuracy what will happen next from what had already happened cannot be 100% right all the time. Only couple of weeks ago the percentage of death on the Case Fatality Rate (CFR) has gone up from 7% to 14%. What will it be two weeks from now? I don’t know, but the trajectory doesn’t look good on those who might now or in the near future get infected with Covid-19.

Actually, the 14% is from the John Hopkins data, but as to my calculations, it is still around 7%.

Infection Fatality Rate is 0.26% – CDC

On May 15th, the Center for Disease Control (CDC) in the US published its official estimate – 0.26%, although it doesn’t come right out and say it. Rather, it estimates the case fatality rate (CFR) for different age groups:

0-49 year-olds: 0.05%
50-64 year-olds: 0.2%
65+ years-old: 1.3%
Mean CFR: 0.4%

The CDC estimates that 35% of people who’ve been infected are asymptomatic, so to get the IFR from the CFR you have to multiply it by 0.65 – 0.4 x 0.65 = 0.26%.

You are ignoring the percentages of the dead from CFR to which is what I wrote and instead, you want to write about percentages of likelihood or unlikelihood of becoming in the IFR and then to CFR stats. Seems to me you want to whitewash the percentage of the dead from CFR.

Cases 5,322,358
Dead 340,290
= 6.39%

Death rate would be a lot lower than 6%. This statistic isn't reliable because it doesn't factor in all the asymptomatic cases that were never detected and also other cases that had mild to moderate symptoms that were never reported.

[cyprusgrump]

When the lockdowns were proposed and then implemented, many here who were/are anti lockdown, considered lockdowns as being Human Rights violations. However, they proposing lockdown only on the high risk groups, whomever they may be as there is no definite class of high risk groups and non high risk groups, we are now no longer hearing violation of Human Rights by the anti lockdown groups. I don’t believe anyone is for a lockdown, but what options did we have when so little was know on Covid-19, and after Wuhan was under a lockdown and as we believed that the virus was contained within the boundaries of Wuhan, we all had to try out the lockdown.

Has it worked? We don’t know as we still had deaths. Would it have been worse without the lockdown? Probably. Was it worth shutting down the economy for the sake of lockdown? It remains to be seen as we are still no where near having a vaccine for Covid-19. Personally, anti lockdown groups have over used Sweden as an example model what what we should have all done, and it may have been warranted in the early days, but as Erol pointed out, in the last 7 days, Sweden has become the worst case example in the question of lockdown or no lockdown. The trajectory of Sweden is only heading in the wrong direction as the case with Brazil.

The situation with Covid-19 is very fluid as the numbers keep shifting rapidly, therefore anyone maintaining constant accuracy what will happen next from what had already happened cannot be 100% right all the time. Only couple of weeks ago the percentage of death on the Case Fatality Rate (CFR) has gone up from 7% to 14%. What will it be two weeks from now? I don’t know, but the trajectory doesn’t look good on those who might now or in the near future get infected with Covid-19.

Actually, the 14% is from the John Hopkins data, but as to my calculations, it is still around 7%.

Infection Fatality Rate is 0.26% – CDC

On May 15th, the Center for Disease Control (CDC) in the US published its official estimate – 0.26%, although it doesn’t come right out and say it. Rather, it estimates the case fatality rate (CFR) for different age groups:

0-49 year-olds: 0.05%
50-64 year-olds: 0.2%
65+ years-old: 1.3%
Mean CFR: 0.4%

The CDC estimates that 35% of people who’ve been infected are asymptomatic, so to get the IFR from the CFR you have to multiply it by 0.65 – 0.4 x 0.65 = 0.26%.

You are ignoring the percentages of the dead from CFR to which is what I wrote and instead, you want to write about percentages of likelihood or unlikelihood of becoming in the IFR and then to CFR stats. Seems to me you want to whitewash the percentage of the dead from CFR.

Cases 5,322,358
Dead 340,290
= 6.39%

Yes, I realise where you get the number from Kiks...

But you are making the assumption that there are no people who caught the disease but didn't know they had it or had only mild symptoms that didn't require medical intervention...

I'm fairly sure that The CDC would have data that indicates what %'age of the population that falls into that category. You know, based on previous epidemics and stuff...

Ultimately, as you said once before we'll have to wait until the fat lady sings to find out if you are right or the WHO, CDC, etc. with much lower figures...

We already know, that about 90% of all those tested for Covid-19 are negative so it is no point including those who may have been exposed to the virus but had little or no symptoms. As the example I made to Tim recently, that just because most of us have cancer cells in our bodies, it does not make us cancer patients. We know who the cancer patients are and also those who die from cancer. No different with the known Covid-19 patients cases. Of the known cases, 6.39% have died from it. Much lower than cancer patients I may add.

That is the very point you are arguing about!

The CFR is telling us how deadly the virus is - how many people that get it die.

You can't exclude people that get it but have little to no symptoms! You may just as well count the deaths column and state that the CFR is 100%!