More good news now that the global corona incident is behind us, (goodbye 2021!).
If the data is the case, then 2020 death's could have been way way greater.
For clarity, the 25 seroprevalance studies number crunched from 2020 data, when (IIRC ) the jab rollout had not even started. It's also a 'pre-print' meaning it has not been peer reviewed, IOW it has only just come out.
So, the survival rate of the corona in 2020 will be mostly eu-natrel. IE, one would just have to tough it out.
Assumably, if the jabs have an effect, then one would expect the IFR to be lower. However, at a survival rate of 99.9987% for <20yrs any beneficial effect, say moving the rate to 99.99991% would hardly seem to be worth the bother.
This begs the question, did our gov waste millions of $ on shots given to the fit & healthy young uns? That money could have been redirected to the elderly, it would have paid for a heck of a lot of strong vitamins, even a temporary pension bonus. Or paying off the national debt.
I picked out the relevant numbers-
The data used from the study was taken before mass jabs, so the data applies to unjabbed people.
The Stanford Prof previously published an analysis of seroprevalence (antibody) studies from 2020, which resulted being able show data that the IFR for the Wutang clan Flu globally was around 0.15%. In Europe, the number stood at 0.3%-0.4% , while in Africa and Asia it went down to 0.05%.
Number crunching of 25 sero surveys across 14 countries, the Prof and his colleague found the IFR varied from 0.0013% in <20s (around one in 100,000) to 0.65% in those >60.
For those >70 not in LTC it was 2.9%, rising to 4.9% for all >70s. This means that even for the elderly, more than 95% of those infected survive – 97.1% when considering those not in LTCH. For younger people the mortality risk is orders of magnitude less, with 99.9987% of <20s surviving exposure. These survival rates include people with underlying health conditions, so for the healthy the rates will be higher again (and the fatality rates lower)- obviously.
However, at a survival rate of 99.9987% for under 20yrs any beneficial effect, say moving the rate to 99.99991% would hardly seem to be worth the bother.
You can pretty much say the same for healthy people of any age. But then, it’s easier for governments to just say jab everybody than to single out, say, fat people or people with hypertension.
More good news now that the global corona incident is behind us, (goodbye 2021!).
If the data is the case, then 2020 death's could have been way way greater.
For clarity, the 25 seroprevalance studies number crunched from 2020 data, when (IIRC ) the jab rollout had not even started. It's also a 'pre-print' meaning it has not been peer reviewed, IOW it has only just come out.
So, the survival rate of the corona in 2020 will be mostly eu-natrel. IE, one would just have to tough it out.
Assumably, if the jabs have an effect, then one would expect the IFR to be lower. However, at a survival rate of 99.9987% for <20yrs any beneficial effect, say moving the rate to 99.99991% would hardly seem to be worth the bother.
This begs the question, did our gov waste millions of $ on shots given to the fit & healthy young uns? That money could have been redirected to the elderly, it would have paid for a heck of a lot of strong vitamins, even a temporary pension bonus. Or paying off the national debt.
I picked out the relevant numbers-
The data used from the study was taken before mass jabs, so the data applies to unjabbed people.
The Stanford Prof previously published an analysis of seroprevalence (antibody) studies from 2020, which resulted being able show data that the IFR for the Wutang clan Flu globally was around 0.15%. In Europe, the number stood at 0.3%-0.4% , while in Africa and Asia it went down to 0.05%.
Number crunching of 25 sero surveys across 14 countries, the Prof and his colleague found the IFR varied from 0.0013% in <20s (around one in 100,000) to 0.65% in those >60.
For those >70 not in LTC it was 2.9%, rising to 4.9% for all >70s. This means that even for the elderly, more than 95% of those infected survive – 97.1% when considering those not in LTCH. For younger people the mortality risk is orders of magnitude less, with 99.9987% of <20s surviving exposure. These survival rates include people with underlying health conditions, so for the healthy the rates will be higher again (and the fatality rates lower)- obviously.
Again for reference heres the link: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.08.21260210v2 Stanford author: https://med.stanford.edu/profiles/john-ioannidis#bio
You can pretty much say the same for healthy people of any age. But then, it’s easier for governments to just say jab everybody than to single out, say, fat people or people with hypertension.
"Oi fatty! Come get yer double double!"