Cyprus-Forum.com

[erolz66]

No, if you a take a reasonably representative sample from a given population, determine how many people in that sample have developed anitibodies against the virus and have thus contracted the virus, put this number in the denominator, then put the number of people from the same population who died of the virus into the numerator, you can determine the infection mortality rate for that population. This is science, not guessing.

Blah
Blah
Blah

This is science too
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101 ... 20098780v1

Applying this asymptotic estimator to cumulative COVID-19 data from 139 countries reveals a global IFR of 1.04%

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/927870

Case Fatality Rate for COVID-19 Near 1.4%, Increases With Age

and on and on and on. There is no consensus yet. There is no definitive data yet. All we have is you doing what you have been doing consistently for over 6 weeks now. Cherry picking any expert that suits you whilst ignore all those that do not. Along with you ignoring measurements of fact that you yourself first used when they showed what you wanted them to show and then stopped using the minute they did not show what you wanted them to show.

Blah
Balh
Blah

[cyprusgrump]

and on and on and on. There is no consensus yet. There is no definitive data yet. All we have is you doing what you have been doing consistently for over 6 weeks now. Cherry picking any expert that suits you whilst ignore all those that do not.

It is bizarre that you don't recognise yourself in that quote ErLolz....

"I'm right and everybody else (including virologists, epidemiologists, physicians and all other experts) are wrong" is written through your every post like a stick of rock!

I feel you may fall as hard as Bordo...

[Tim Drayton]

This is science too
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101 ... 20098780v1

The article is titled "Estimating the Global Infection Fatality Rate of COVID-19" and estimating means guessing, because that is what the authors are doing. They have not conducted their own research on the ground based on a large-scale samples, as opposed to the studies I have referred to.

[Tim Drayton]

This is science too

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/927870

Case Fatality Rate for COVID-19 Near 1.4%, Increases With Age

I can't access that article, unfortunately, but I see it dates from the end of March when less data was available. Prof. Hendrick Streeck's groundbreaking study in Heinsberg first appeared on May 4. This later work, based on solid empirical data surely trumps less reliable earlier speculation.

Incidentally, the headline above speaks of the CFR and not IFR, anyhow, and a case fatality ratio, i.e. the percentage of people who present to doctors or hospitals with severe symptoms, of 1.4% is not very high and is far removed from all the alarmist hysteria the dominant media were pumping out.

[erolz66]

I am not playing the my expert is better than yours. I refuse to do it because its pointless. I prefer to work out what simple numbers of fact there are out there that I as a layman can understand and think for myself with that as my starting point. You carry on searching out any guesses that support what you want to believe and claiming these are the right ones, the best ones, the consensus - when they are not. I am not interested in trying to out propaganda you. It is a pointless waste of time imo. I am seeking actual best possible understanding. As for the dates of any given expert, you have been making claims about your experts being the right ones from day one.

[erolz66]

and on and on and on. There is no consensus yet. There is no definitive data yet. All we have is you doing what you have been doing consistently for over 6 weeks now. Cherry picking any expert that suits you whilst ignore all those that do not.

It is bizarre that you don't recognise yourself in that quote ErLolz....

"I'm right and everybody else (including virologists, epidemiologists, physicians and all other experts) are wrong" is written through your every post like a stick of rock!

I feel you may fall as hard as Bordo...

You made this allegation before and when I challenged you to give a single example you failed to do so. Give an example where I have used a cherry picked expert ? I just have NOT been doing this. What I have been doing , over and over is making the very simple point that not all 'numbers' are the same. Some represent know facts of what has already happened measuring things that can not be disputed, like if someone is dead or not. At the other end you have numbers that are guesses of things that CAN NOT be know yet, like mortality rates, R etc etc. I have simply and consistently made the point that if you are looking for understanding and not just to confirm your starting bias, then you would understand the how some numbers are different from others, work out which ones are definitive fact and then work out from these numbers. Which is all I have been doing for 6 weeks now. In the face of the like of Tim and you that just cherry pick any expert that suits and ignore everything else, and happy clap each others posts and insult anyone not in support of your chosen side. It is all there in the history.

You are also obsessed with being right or me being wrong. The problem with that is that over all , all I have been saying is , you can not predict the outcome of a horse race like the grand national that has not yet been run. So even if your predicted horse comes in that does not make me wrong. It just makes me someone who was always talking sense.

[Tim Drayton]

This is science too

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/927870

Case Fatality Rate for COVID-19 Near 1.4%, Increases With Age

I can't access that article, unfortunately, but I see it dates from the end of March when less data was available. Prof. Hendrick Streeck's groundbreaking study in Heinsberg first appeared on May 4. This later work, based on solid empirical data surely trumps less reliable earlier speculation.

Incidentally, the headline above speaks of the CFR and not IFR, anyhow, and a case fatality ratio, i.e. the percentage of people who present to doctors or hospitals with severe symptoms, of 1.4% is not very high and is far removed from all the alarmist hysteria the dominant media were pumping out.

It has just occurred to me that, since it is by now pretty well established that at least 80% of cases are asymptomatic, to convert the CFR to IFR you need to divide by 5, in which case a CFR of 1.4% converts to an IFR of just under 0.3% which is in line with the results of the first serious studies based on hard data to determine the IFR in particular populations.

[Get Real!]

We've all been affected by this crazy virus, and I've seen the most remarkable changes/transformations to CF members like...

Paphitis: Computer idiot ---> Computer expert +Google

Grumpy: Average moaner ---> Moaner extraordinaire

Tim: Translator/Interpreter ---> Statistician

Erol: Lazy bum ---> Meals on Wheels

GR: Good looking guy ---> Incredibly handsome guy

[cyprusgrump]

Same old, same old, same old, same old same old, same old, same old same old, same old, same old same old, same old, same old same old, same old, same old same old, same old, same old same old, same old, same old same old, same old, same old same old, same old, same old same old, same old, same old same old, same old, same old same old, same old, same old same old, same old, same old same old, same old, same old same old, same old, same old same old, same old, same old same old, same old, same old same old, same old, same old same old, same old, same old same old, same old, same old same old, same old, same old same old, same old, same old same old, same old, same old same old, same old, same old same old, same old, same old same old, same old, same old same old, same old, same old same old, same old, same old same old, same old, same old same old, same old, same old same old, same old, same old same old, same old, same old same old, same old, same old same old, same old, same old same old, same old, same old same old, same old, same old same old, same old, same old same old, same old, same old same old, same old, same old same old, same old, same old same old, same old, same old same old, same old, same old same old, same old, same old same old, same old, same old same old, same old, same old same old, same old, same old....

[erolz66]

This is science too

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/927870

Case Fatality Rate for COVID-19 Near 1.4%, Increases With Age

I can't access that article, unfortunately, but I see it dates from the end of March when less data was available. Prof. Hendrick Streeck's groundbreaking study in Heinsberg first appeared on May 4. This later work, based on solid empirical data surely trumps less reliable earlier speculation.

Incidentally, the headline above speaks of the CFR and not IFR, anyhow, and a case fatality ratio, i.e. the percentage of people who present to doctors or hospitals with severe symptoms, of 1.4% is not very high and is far removed from all the alarmist hysteria the dominant media were pumping out.

It has just occurred to me that, since it is by now pretty well established that at least 80% of cases are asymptomatic, to convert the CFR to IFR you need to divide by 5, in which case a CFR of 1.4% converts to an IFR of just under 0.3% which is in line with the results of the first serious studies based on hard data to determine the IFR in particular populations.

All you prove Tim is that you just ignore anything that does not suit. I just plucked out two scientific reports at random to make the point that there is currently no scientific consensus on IFR or CFR or R or countless other numbers and the first, which you can read, that says explicitly 'reveals a global IFR of 1.04%' you just ignore. Instead you talk about the report than yopu can NOT read and start banging on about how the headline is talking about CFR. You literally ignore the report you can read that does not say what you want it to and go on to 'prove' the result you always wanted using the report that you can not read whilst ignoring the first. QED