(36,096 / 350 million) * 100
0.0103%
Considering that each person on the road increases car accident fatality chance for others.
Just interesting to look at what we allow from a safety perspective in comparison to COVID.
(that is actually larger since to keep it simple I didn't calculate that only 90% of Americans have a driver's license)
I assume the IFR percentage includes whole societies responding to the pandemic. These numbers might have turned out much higher if we did not respond, as some demanded. E.g. because saturating health systems into triage leads to increased mortality (even for conditions outside covid). I mean there are probably people who died because their scheduled operations have been moved back because the ER rooms were full. Viewing a pandemic simply through a mortality percentage is therefore problematic.
At the same time cars kill to many people and we are doing not enough about that. People don't like the implications of what taking car deaths seriously would mean. It would mean less freedom, stricter laws, a total reshaping of transportation, cities and the way people live etc. It is not taken seriously because people don't want to follow through with what needed to be done if it was taken seriously.
A bit like the people who assured themselves that c19 was just "like the flu" and that "masks don't help". They told themselves that, because they were afraid of living in a world where this was actually true. That would have meant taking responsibility for the health of those around you.
IFR is measuring post infection fatality.
This eliminates masks and all other infection prevention responses from the discussion. This study was also done from pre-vaccination data as well.
This is the raw number of people who die after already being infected with covid.
- 0.0003% at 0–19 years
- 0.002% at 20–29 years
- 0.011% at 30–39 years
- 0.035% at 40–49 years
- 0.123% at 50–59 years
- 0.506% at 60–69 years.
2. Most arguments for “mandates” aren’t made in reference to numbers anyway, or reference long COVID, MIS-C, etc rather than fatality rate.
3. This article is for pre-vaccine IFR (i.e. 2020 COVID, the extinct Wuhan strain) and most current arguments reference newer variants which are alleged to be more dangerous. Delta actually was significantly more dangerous although omicron variants are probably back to the original 2020 IFR in the unvaccinated.
we still need to explain it one more time?.
Because millions of people died. And because children have grandparents
This is just the people that were manipulated to deny the problem, looking desperately for a decorous way out that would justify their unjustifiable, selfish and bizarre behavior.
> we still need to explain it one more time?.
> International Visitors Must Continue Verifying COVID-19 Vaccination Status
https://www.precisionvaccinations.com/international-visitors...
> 1. The article is by John Ioannadis who has a history of publishing studies/analysis arguing for a lower COVID-19 IFR than other scientists.
> 2. Most arguments for “mandates” aren’t made in reference to numbers anyway, or reference long COVID, MIS-C, etc rather than fatality rate.
> 3. This article is for pre-vaccine IFR (i.e. 2020 COVID, the extinct Wuhan strain) and most current arguments reference newer variants which are alleged to be more dangerous. Delta actually was significantly more dangerous although omicron variants are probably back to the original 2020 IFR in the unvaccinated.
The point seems clear enough to me. He’s not likely to have changed his views or methods in this new article, therefore someone who had an issue with his IFR figures in 2021 still isn’t going to find it convincing.
Not sure what Hitler has to do with anything.
> The only argument for mandates was that we should "do it for grandma" or some other completely senseless claim considering I don't know anybody who was vaccinated that still didn't get and spread Covid (multiple times in most cases).
It’s unclear what “mandates” are referred to in the original post. You seem to think it refers to vaccines. That was not the only argument put forth for vaccine mandates. There are quite a few others which you can find by googling, of various or dubious validity.
Edit: I agree btw that some justifications for vaccine mandates no longer seem to make sense in the face of omicron breaking through vaccine protection from infection.
> haven't seen any data indicating newer variants in circulation are more dangerous.
Omicron is widely reported to be milder and less dangerous than delta. I’m surprised you haven’t seen this since it was all over even popular media in 2021. Here’s the first article on google. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35415869/
Also, to be clear , as I mentioned “alleged” in my original post - there’s been a lot of scary social media posts hyping up various Omicron variants as more dangerous. None of which have panned out as far as I know, which is why I mentioned Omicron still seems less dangerous than delta.
> Not sure what Hitler has to do with anything.
> Omicron is widely reported to be milder and less dangerous than delta.
Their statement * 0 = nothing.
See the legal principal Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus (false in one thing, false in everything).