As more and more anti-body data comes pouring in the information taken from those figures is now reinforcing what some in the medical community were declaring weeks – that the Covid-19 mortality rate is very similar to that of the common flu and in some ways less of a tragic disease because unlike the flu, Covid-19 poses minimal risk to the young and healthy among us.

Read on to learn more…

Via The Spectator:

Stanford study suggests coronavirus might not be as deadly as flu

All their estimates for IFR are markedly lower than the figures thrown about a couple of months ago

One of the great unknowns of the COVID-19 crisis is just how deadly the disease is. Much of the panic dates from the moment, in early March, when the World Health Organization (WHO) published a mortality rate of 3.2 percent — which turned out to be a crude ‘case fatality rate’ dividing the number of deaths by the number of recorded cases, ignoring the large number of cases which are asymptomatic or otherwise go unrecorded.

The Imperial College modeling, which has been so influential on the UK government, assumed an infection fatality rate (IFR) of 0.9 percent. This was used to compute the infamous prediction that 250,000 Britons would die unless the government abandoned its mitigation strategy and adopted instead a policy of suppressing the virus through lockdown. Imperial later revised its estimate of the IFR down to 0.66 percent — although the March 16 paper which predicted 250,000 deaths was not updated.

In the past few weeks, a slew of serological studies estimating the prevalence of infection in the general population has become available. This has allowed Prof John Ioannidis of Stanford University to work out the IFR in 12 different locations.

They range between 0.02 percent and 0.5 percent — although Ioannidis has corrected those raw figures to take account of demographic balance and come up with estimates between 0.02 percent and 0.4 percent.

The lowest estimates came from Kobe, Japan, found to have an IFR of 0.02 percent and Oise in northern France, with an IFR of 0.04 percent. The highest were in Geneva (a raw figure of 0.5 percent) and Gangelt in Germany (0.28 percent).

The usual caveats apply: most studies to detect the prevalence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus in the general population remain unpublished, and have not yet been peer-reviewed. Some are likely to be unrepresentative of the general population. The Oise study, in particular, was based on students, teachers and parents in a single high school which was known to be a hotspot on COVID-19 infection. At the other end of the table, Geneva has a relatively high age profile, which is likely to skew its death rate upwards.

But it is noticeable how all these estimates for IFR are markedly lower than the figures thrown about a couple of months ago, when it was widely asserted that COVID-19 was a whole magnitude worse than flu. Seasonal influenza is often quoted as having an IFR of 0.1 to 0.2 percent. The Stanford study suggests that COVID-19 might not, after all, be more deadly than flu — although, as Ioannidis notes, the profile is very different: seasonal flu has a higher IFR in developing countries, where vaccination is rare, while COVID-19 has a higher death rate in the developed world, thanks in part of more elderly populations.

(Note: It’s interesting to see how much the U.S. media focuses on clear outlier examples of those suffering from the virus in an attempt to convince Americans it poses a risk to everyone even as the data has indicated time and time again the risk to those under the age of 65 who are in good health is minimal and for those even younger the risk is even less. It’s the “Man Bites Dog” method of journalism which is a clear attempt to manipulate vs inform.)


In addition to the above information which appears to confirm earlier suspicions regarding how deadly (or not) Covid-19 actually is, imagine then if more nations (and certainly the United States) had not seen such an aggressive push by the far-left media to demonize cheap and potentially very effective Covid-19 treatment options such as the hydroxychloroquine + zinc combination that has been hailed by so many doctors both in the U.S. and around the world as a potential “game-changer” first-line defense treatment for the virus?

It was a truly bizarre thing to see Democrat governors and high-profile media figures demanding a drug that has been safely used by millions of people for decades was suddenly something to be banned at all cost – and by all cost we are actually talking about human lives that could have potentially been saved.

These ongoing attacks against a proven safe drug like hydroxychloroquine has certainly fueled the conspiracy fires of people who fear some in power wanted to see Covid-19 and the accompanying panic that resulted, spread. As horrific that such a reality would be – the longer the facts come out about the disease and how it was allowed to spread certainly give rise to understandable suspicion.

And on a related note – the UK is now initiated a widespread dispensing program of hydroxychloroquine as a first-line defense against the coronavirus.

This requires a simple question. Would an entire nation be doing that if the drug was as “unproven” / “controversial” and/or “potentially deadly” as it has been described by the far-left media in America?

The simple question can be given an even simpler answer – NO.

You must then ask yourself why much of the media and political powers in the United States were so quick and aggressive to attack the use of hydroxychloroquine + zinc as a precautionary treatment option – the same precautionary treatment option President Trump announced he had been taking himself for the last two weeks.

The risks of using the drug + zinc combination were minimal while the potential to save lives was far greater.


Pin It on Pinterest

Share This

Share DCWhispers

Share this post with your friends!