Coronavirus Fact-Check #5: Infection-Fatality Ratio Update
You can quote several words to match them as a full term:
"some text to search"
otherwise, the single words will be understood as distinct search terms.
ANY of the entered words would match
2 min read

Coronavirus Fact-Check #5: Infection-Fatality Ratio Update

We covered in our third of these brief articles that, actually, the Coronavirus is NOT “20x deadlier” than the flu.
Coronavirus Fact-Check #5: Infection-Fatality Ratio Update

We covered in our third of these brief articles that, actually, the Coronavirus is NOT “20x deadlier” than the flu. That was evident once the early large-scale studies had been done in Germany, Iceland and South Korea. It has only become more so in the weeks since.

Far from the 3.4% predicted by the WHO back February, or the 1% used by the Imperial Model, all the serological studies done to this point average out at about 0.2%.

Here are some recent examples:

This list is far from exhaustive, visit SWPRS.org for more examples.

Although the numbers do vary from place to place – as you’d expect given changes in demographics, healthcare, methodology, sampling, population density etc. – it’s easy to see that not a single one of them comes anywhere near the 3.4% “officially” listed by the WHO, or even the 1% used in the Imperial model.

Other studies, done all over the world from Boston to the Czech Republic to Japan – have found the level of infection in the general population to be at least 10x higher than expected (and sometimes 100s of times higher).

Regardless of the specifics, ALL of the studies show that the danger of the virus was massively over-estimated.

Read the full article at the original website

References: