Citat:
Ursprungligen postat av
Kaptenstjärt
Säg det till WHO och Island.
Iceland kept their elderly well isolated lowering the IFR considerably. The paper accepted by WHO states a range from 0.00% to 1.63%/1.54% (corrected) and is just an attempt at ratifying several papers into a global IFR — many of which had been flawed. It’s the same bullshit Ionnadis has been pushing out all pandemic, but it’s nice he finally found somewhere to publish it.
Here is the peer review rating of the paper:
https://rapidreviewscovid19.mitpress.mit.edu/pub/p6tto8hl/release/1
“Misleading. Serious flaws and errors in the methods and data render the study conclusions misinformative. The results and conclusions of the ideal study are at least as likely to conclude the opposite of its results and conclusions than agree. Decision-makers should not consider this evidence in any decision.”
“Conducting such a study is not easy, and efforts to do so are valuable and should be encouraged. Unfortunately, the method used here to estimate IFR is flawed due to systematic bias introduced by internal migration (as I shall describe in detail below). This bias produces misleading conclusions when used to argue that IFR is lower in locales with lower-than-average cumulative death rates. The discussion section is therefore also fatally flawed. Even if the sources of bias in the IFR estimates were somehow addressed, the author's thesis, that NPIs are unneeded, ignores the emerging evidence of the long-term non-fatal health burden caused by COVID-19.”
“because of its flawed methods and misleading conclusions, I must recommend rejecting it as unsalvageable.”
Another easy way to disprove this is to look at America. They aren’t anywhere near a 50/60% population infection rate.