It's been decided, you're just simply wrong on IFR, have been the whole time, and can't accept it.

Here's the Sweden data by the way:

They have a death rate of 0.04% (officially, lower bound) while 97% of the high death age group and 95% of the population hasn't been infected. This lines up with the results in Belgium too.

Eradication remains the only sane strategy. Countries that have attempted it have crushed the virus and are on zero, or close enough. Those that haven't have 5x-100x the dead and zero benefit in immunity. Their citizens have another 8-12 months of limited economic activity and fear and death and isolating the old before it goes through enough of the population to be immune

The guy that you quote literally says in the thread that you shouldn't take the results as final, that they are only preliminary. And yet you take them as concrete proof.

Incredible.

What, no one in here is touting calorie restriction diets and intermittent fasting?

https://www.nia.nih.gov/news/researc...ealth-benefits

https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0227144259.htm

TS could have written this:
https://undark.org/2019/07/18/science-of-eggs/

I wondered what billionaires are eating.
Bill Gates-Diet Coke
Warren Buffet-Coke
lol

I didn't fall for anything. The key data was the immune response in humans proven, with low side effects. That's a big step and moves the odds (whether Moderna is the winner of the hundreds trying or not). And for sure I get schooled sometimes. It wasn't by this idiot though, he was completely wrong on the facts, came out swinging for no good reason and ended up with egg on his face.
Of course they're preliminary. Preliminary results across 5 countries. Very unlikely to change substantially. That you confuse "prelminary" (meaning not finalized/reviewed fully) with "not certain yet in what they prove" is hilarious. Do you not know what preliminary means?

They data is now concrete proof, combined all the other data we have, that IFR is >1%. What's incredible is that your mind is so unable to reason rationally that you a) thought a 0.5% IFR was probable against the mountain of pre-antibody-testing b) thought the Stanford was other than pure trash and c) can't data fit well enough to see what is now a certainty (that the IFR is >1%).

Something can be both preliminary AND, as the same guys says: "let's end the discussion. The data is in".

You had a clown take at odds with the data and now it's disproven. You're just making it worse for yourself by keeping your hope in what's a completely settled debate.

Can we go back to the theory that not many people have antibodies but many people do have immunity from T cells? We need that to be studied.

Also, we need everyone who tests positive on a swab PCR test to be tested for blood antibodies a month later, and then have monthly repeated antibody testing, to see how long immunity lasts, and what percentage of confirmed cases develop antibodies.

FYI, the IFR during pandemics always trends downward over time. So take your victory lap now, but the race isn't over. Also, I have admitted since the beginning that my estimate was a guess. I have always been open to the idea that I could be wrong. It's you who acted like you had some incredible insight into this virus. But you initially said the IFR was going to be much higher than 1 percent. And now you are clinging to that figure like it's the last lifeboat off the Titanic. Which, for you, it is.

Because the only direction the IFR number is going to go from here is down.

Nice try but no cigar. There are two figures for IFR - hospitals overwhelmed = 4%ish death rate (Wuhan only really, maybe a week in Italy), and non hospital overwhelmed which is at >1%. The IFR settled at >1% months ago bar a mutation, the data was very clear. Antibody testing has confirmed for sure that nothing has change and the IFR remains crazy high >1%, far too high to reopen fully without more waves.

The IFR won't necessarily go down, it could easily go up. The young have caught it at 3x the rate of the old, it's the old that die. Do the math on that if goes through a population. We can reasonably surmise that the IFR where old people get infected as much as young people (Wuhan with multi generational homes) is >2.5%

The interest in IFR isn't something academic. It speaks to whether herd immunity is a viable stategy without lots of deaths and 6+ months of dragging economies, and whether the idiot experts who thought herd immunity was the way had a good strategy. That's settled now.
This has been tested plenty of times. >90% of confirmed cases develop detectable antibodies.

I think the rapidness with which this went through the population proves that no one is naturally immune

No, it isn't concrete proof. If the antibodies don't last very long (like some other coronaviruses) then everyone who had COVID-19 in January would test negative for antibodies now.

Exponential growth means that this is irrelevant. Maybe 10-100 people had corona in January in say Italy vs a million in April.

The antibody results are solid at this point. This has been well tested.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1....03.20089854v2

How about we split the difference? Any further argument on this matter and you will have to track down the scientists who wrote this paper and have it out with them.

My advice? Take the draw. It only gets worse for you from here.

This is awesome and the best self ownage in this thread (and I include Brass in that, whole got everything wrong and left in shame). From what you linked:

You're using as proof this isn't settled, a summary of estimates from the public literature going back to February. All you're proving is that experts are morons.

We have the data now. Do you understand that? You're using estimates from February to April with a completely unknown denominator (because it had never been measured), to wiggle out of the fact that we have powerful diverse real data now, sampling hundreds of thousands of people, that reliably gives an IFR > 1%.

That's just...incredible? You claim to be an expert so I'm taking this another data point that experts are morons.
It's over man. My advice: get better at your analytical and evidence evaluation skills. You claim to work in this field, we need experts who aren't morons.

Yup. You have lost and you don't even know it.

Look, you aren't arguing with me, you are arguing with experts who have published a paper. Go after them. Create a twitter account, post that name here, and start bombarding them with your concerns. See how that goes.

That's a challenge. Let's see if you are up to the task. We can all follow along.

Ball is in your court.

You guys should really look at Worldometer. They basically used the exact logic as Toothsayer and crunched some numbers using NYC as an example, and there really is no way the IFR could be less than 1.

There is no way to look at NYC numbers and have an IFR below 1. You would need over 100% of the population to be infected.

Ladies and gentleman, an expert. To recap:

- Claims to be an expert
- Makes horrible predictions and get proven wrong
- When completely wrong, goes into total denial
- When called on it, cites a study that's completely bogus and months outdated
- Ignores all the mountains of hard data that came after the study that make the study irrelevant even it wasn't bogus.

Did I mention you can't trust experts, and that most of them are morons? Thanks for another data point.

I mean ultimately the death rate is going to be a function of the age of infected (and to a lesser extent comorbidities). but I think for any Western country with a lot of older people in poor health, IFR is always going to be above 1.

Iceland with an IFR of around 0.5% is probably a very best case scenario, where probably a lot of young travelers got infected, but they responsibly quarantined and didn't give it to older people in poor health.

If the study is bogus, go on twitter and attack it. Post your id here and we will follow along.

It's really a simple challenge. You are good at those, right?

Bro, it's not even worth debunking, it's far out of date. Like I said, this is better self owning than Brass did (see the early pages in this thread), and that was some amazing self owning.

If you want to claim you trusted the experts and were misled/got it wrong/should have listened to Tooth, hey, I'm good with that, but you're not claiming that. You're actually claiming that this isn't settled, which is comical.
Yeah no kidding. And it's not just NY...there are over 15 different data points between large states and countries, comprising hundreds of thousands of people tested, and NONE show an IFR below 1%.

Another (claimed) expert that's absolute trash, appealing to bogus authority (old studies, consensus, anyone?), more likely to be wrong than correct, extremely slow to adapt to new information, and butthurt to the teeth when their 'learned' opinion turns out to be a joke.

jsb235 is an expert in what field?

Look, if you have the time to post here 1,000 times a day, your time isn't so valuable that you can't spend 20 minutes posting a few tweets.

Or don't. Either way I don't care. The data is out there and people can judge for themselves.

So Russia has an insanely low death rate.

And according to this article, China is claiming the virus symptoms of new cases in the NE coming from Russia are different (longer latency before symptoms, don't attack multiple organs)

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...-than-in-wuhan

It could of course be absolutely nothing, as we are talking about Russia and China, so take anything you hear or read with a grain of salt.

But it could also indicate the virus is mutating and weakening, as these things tend to do.

I think >90% it's just China/local officials trying to PR damage control a new outbreak after they had it contained ("this virus takes longer to incubate, and is harder to control!").

As for Russia, they're doing an enormous amount of testing, and they're catching most, that's why caught cases/death is low.

You are bringing an aggregate model written 23 days ago to disprove real live testing data collected since then.

You can argue :
a) current data is wrong/incomplete or
b) TS’s basic math is wrong.

But no one would need to “disprove” that model on twitter. The authors will be the first ones to tell you that our additional info would move their range higher. That’s how models work.

(Of course, 23 days ago it was pretty clear from italy and NY anyway, but that’s a separate issue.)

Go find better data and post it here. No one's stopping you.

Or just accept what TS thinks.

It makes no difference to me.

Better data has already been presented like 20 times in the thread. The best data out there right now supports IFR >1%. Let's stop rehashing that and move on to more productive topics.

JSB, until you can find some new, relevant data that supports an IFR <1%, just drop it and move on.