Citat:
Ah, dear Ulf. You talk on and on about how if you take every serious study and place them together the aggregate is 0.75%. I tell you that small-scale studies should be discarded and then provide you a paper that looks at seroprevalence data and studies from 130+ countries vs death rates + excess mortality rates to inform a proper IFR for wide-scale studies. The things required to find the true death toll, of course. Basically, a better and closer look at informing the stratified death rate. But tell me that I’m making things up, because Expressen said otherwise.
I’ve read the study your rag-newspaper is referring to already, which is why I’m allowing this debate. But it is amusing that you would push forth the rag-newspaper as proof instead of the study. I’m also confused by your insistence over that particular Lancet study. Here’s a Lancet study that finds the IFR in Europe ranges from 0.5% - 1% published two days ago, are you going to cling to this one, instead?: https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736(20)31357-X.pdf
Looking at nearly all equivalent evidence from similar countries can help us inform our domestic IFR. The IFR here in Sweden is anywhere from 1% to 1.3%. Globally stratified, it’s about 1%. I don’t understand why you call me a liar when I’ve produced a paper that looks at global stratification (and finds 1.04%) when you claimed that 0.75% is the average and held tightly to it — or when I shared the Belgium study I had just finished reading (being the newest seroprevalence study to release, and considering it calculates the IFR with a 95% CI across age ranges and genders before stratifying) to disprove your claims that no serious scientist believes the IFR is 1% or over.
National studies in countries with wide-scale infection have consistently found IFR’s of 1% or higher. The only one I can think of that hasn’t is the French one in Sciencemag, as it looks only at hospital admissions and calculates from a non-adjusted seroprevalence. Taking the seroprevalence given on the date that paper published, running the results through a Bayesian inference model to achieve the correct seroprevalence (roughly), and then calculating against excess mortality/official numbers on that date paint an entirely different story.
My point is this: read more studies. Calculate those without IFR’s for yourself. Keep a critical mind out for those who do and double check their methods and data. Hopefully, I’ll meet you at 1% IFR globally stratified when Lancet publishes another conflicting pre-print, or Tegnell decides to up his IFR estimate for the sixth time.
But you raised yours from 0.6% to 0.75%, so we’re making progress. You’re getting there.
I’ve read the study your rag-newspaper is referring to already, which is why I’m allowing this debate. But it is amusing that you would push forth the rag-newspaper as proof instead of the study. I’m also confused by your insistence over that particular Lancet study. Here’s a Lancet study that finds the IFR in Europe ranges from 0.5% - 1% published two days ago, are you going to cling to this one, instead?: https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736(20)31357-X.pdf
Looking at nearly all equivalent evidence from similar countries can help us inform our domestic IFR. The IFR here in Sweden is anywhere from 1% to 1.3%. Globally stratified, it’s about 1%. I don’t understand why you call me a liar when I’ve produced a paper that looks at global stratification (and finds 1.04%) when you claimed that 0.75% is the average and held tightly to it — or when I shared the Belgium study I had just finished reading (being the newest seroprevalence study to release, and considering it calculates the IFR with a 95% CI across age ranges and genders before stratifying) to disprove your claims that no serious scientist believes the IFR is 1% or over.
National studies in countries with wide-scale infection have consistently found IFR’s of 1% or higher. The only one I can think of that hasn’t is the French one in Sciencemag, as it looks only at hospital admissions and calculates from a non-adjusted seroprevalence. Taking the seroprevalence given on the date that paper published, running the results through a Bayesian inference model to achieve the correct seroprevalence (roughly), and then calculating against excess mortality/official numbers on that date paint an entirely different story.
My point is this: read more studies. Calculate those without IFR’s for yourself. Keep a critical mind out for those who do and double check their methods and data. Hopefully, I’ll meet you at 1% IFR globally stratified when Lancet publishes another conflicting pre-print, or Tegnell decides to up his IFR estimate for the sixth time.
But you raised yours from 0.6% to 0.75%, so we’re making progress. You’re getting there.
Dödligheten i Sverige är ca 0,6% enligt rapport som kom nu i veckan och som såklart har långt mer data än du nånsin haft.
Det stämmer mycket väl in i de allra flesta rapporter som publicerats i ämnet. Inklusive i världens mest ansedda medicinska tidskrift The Lancet.
I den stora och mycket väl genomförda studien kom man fram till en dödlighet på 0,66%
Om man tar ALLA storia studier som finns i ämnet så blir snittet 0,75%
Att då som okunnig skribent på Flashback sitta och påstå att dödligheten är över 1% när precis alla data, rapporter och forskning tyder på nått helt annat gör dig bara till en löjlig person.
Du har fel helt enkelt och du kan inte acceptera detta. Du hänvisar till lokala gamla studier ifrån Lombardiet och tror det är relevant för den globala dödligheten.
Nu har vi gott om data på detta efter 6 månader med pandemin och precis ALLT tyder på en dödlighet långt under 1%
Som dessutom kommer att sjunka med tiden som den alltid gör.
