DEATH STATISTICS - IFR 0.14% - WHO Accidentally Confirms Covid Is No More Dangerous Than Flu


  
Oct 8, 2020 965
WHO (Accidentally) Confirms

Covid is No More Dangerous
Than Flu
Head of Health Emergencies Program “best
estimates” put IFR at 0.14%
Kit Knightly
T
he World Health Organization has nally con rmed what we (and
many experts and studies) have been saying for months –
the coronavirus is no more deadly or dangerous than
seasonal lu.
e WHO’s top brass made this announcement during a special

session of the WHO’s 34-member executive board on Monday
October 5th, it’s just nobody seemed to really understand it.
In fact, they didn’t seem to completely understand it themselves.
At the session, Dr Michael Ryan, the WHO’s Head of Emergencies

revealed that they believe roughly 10% of the world has been infected
with Sars-Cov-2. is is their “best estimate”, and a huge increase over
the number of o cially recognised cases (around 35 million).
Dr. Margaret Harris, a WHO spokeswoman, later con rmed the

gure, stating it was based on the average results of all the broad
seroprevalence studies done around the world.
As much as the WHO were attempting to spin this as a bad thing – Dr

Ryan even said it means “the vast majority of the world remains at risk.” – it’s
actually good news. And con rms, once more, that the virus is nothing
like as deadly as everyone predicted.
e global population is roughly 7.8 billion people, if 10% have been

infected that is 780 million cases. e global death toll currently
attributed to Sars-Cov-2 infections is 1,061,539.
at’s an infection fatality rate of roughly or 0.14%. Right in line with

seasonal lu and the predictions of many experts from all around the
world.
0.14% is over 24 times LOWER than the WHO’s “provisional gure” of

3.4% back in March. is gure was used in the models which were
used to justify lockdowns and other draconian policies.
In fact, given the over-reporting of alleged Covid deaths, the IFR is
likely even lower than 0.14%, and could show Covid to be much less
dangerous than lu.
None of the mainstream press picked up on this. ough many outlets

reported Dr Ryan’s words, they all attempted to make it a scary
headline and spread more panic.
Apparently neither they, nor the WHO, were capable of doing the
simple maths that shows us this is good news. And that the Covid
sceptics have been right all along.
UPDATE 9/10/20: In the interest of thoroughness, a desire to rely on

primary sources, and not depending purely on mainstream sources
(which may remove or amend articles), I decided to nd the actual
video of Dr Ryan’s remarks.
For some reason, although this was an important WHO meeting

during an allegedly hyper-serious pandemic, the video is hard to nd.
e only place you are able to see it is the WHO’s own website, and even
then you have to scrub through almost 6 hours of footage. Well, I did
that, and you are welcome.
You can’t embed the WHO’s stream, but I can tell you to go to this page,
click “Session 1” and skip to 1:01:33 to hear the exact quote:
“ Our current best estimates tell us that about ten

percent of the global population may have been infected
by this virus. This varies depending on country, it varies
from urban to rural, it varies between di ferent groups.”
UPDATE 13/10/2020: Here is the actual ripped audio:

00:00 00:00
Many thanks to all the people who sent us in their recordings.
FILED UNDER: C OR ON AVI R U S , LATEST , STATI STI C S AN D AN ALYSI S

TAGGED WITH: CORON AVI RUS , COVI D1 9 , DR MI CH AEL RYAN , S TATS AN D AN ALY S I S , W H O
can you spare $1.00 a month to support independent media

Unlike the Guardian we are NOT funded by Bill & Melinda Gates, or any
other NGO or government. So a few coins in our jar to help us keep going
are always appreciated.
Our Bitcoin JTR code is: 1JR1whUa3G24wXpDyqMKpieckMGGW2u2VX
4.4
Article Rating
Subscribe Connect with
Join the discussion

965 COMMENTS newest
Franz Meier Oct 27, 2020 6:37 PM
Facebok fact checker say that the article is wrong an banned it from facebook. Can you con rm
the article is correct ?
0 0 Reply
Walt Oct 27, 2020 12:20 PM
What is the real name of Kit Nightly?

0 0 Reply
paijo Oct 25, 2020 1:49 AM
joh asu matane picek, sing bener lek rilis berita

1 0 Reply
Doris Gloor Oct 22, 2020 7:54 PM
For me WHO needs to be reorganized with people with the right background and knowledge,
intelligence and decency. This organization is protected by Chinese, at the moment the second
(beside the UN) useless organization in the world. Misinformations since February this year.
12 -1 Reply
paijo Oct 25, 2020 1:53 AM
Reply to Doris Gloor
i think so
1 0 Reply
Walt Oct 27, 2020 1:14 PM
Reply to Doris Gloor
and your quali cations are?

0 0 Reply
Bradley Oct 22, 2020 4:18 AM
I get that as .014%. 1,061,539 divided by 7,800,000,000 then multiplied by 100. Am I wrong?
5 -2 Reply
Aaron Oct 23, 2020 11:48 AM
Reply to Bradley
yes, unfortunately you are wrong you have to pick 780 millions (10% of the population)
instead of 7.8 billions (you calculated the whole population).
have a nice day!
5 0 Reply
Bam Oct 25, 2020 4:17 AM
Reply to Aaron
Garbage writing.
0 0 Reply
Rob Oct 24, 2020 11:55 AM
Reply to Bradley
Divide by 780.000.000 (10% of 7.800.000.000). The IFR = 0,14%.

2 -1 Reply
Diego Oct 22, 2020 3:38 AM
And you are not taking into account 2 very important issues: #1 many deaths that were not COVID
related are registered as COVID. I have at least 5 close friends whose relatives died of something
not related at all with COVID and that were registered as COVID deaths. So the death toll must be
much lower. #2: all the OMS protocols tend to make COVID cases fatal. They tell you to isolate for
15 days, taking only Paracetamol. At the end of these 15 days, the virus is gone but le t at least 1
bacteria in your lungs. If you get hospitalized, then you are likely to die rather than survive,
becuase again they apply OMS protocols that lead you to death, in most of the cases. 60 direct
contacts (friends and relatives) treated with Ibuprofene and lu medicine if starting from the very
beggining of the symthoms, adding an antibiotic if caugh it late, all of them recovered, following
the protocols of Dr Maria Eugenia Barrientos from El Salvador
(https://www.facebook.com/Dra.MariaBarrientos), more than 4000 direct patients recovered,
thousands that followed her protocol under other physicians all over the world.
2 0 Reply
biagio vuolo Oct 20, 2020 2:24 PM
THE GUYS OF https://healthfeedback.org/ , TELL US ON FACEBOOK , THIS IS A FAKE NEWS .
THESE TRAITORS WANT TO HIDE THE TRUTH .
FUCK COVID
5 -1 Reply
Tack Oct 19, 2020 5:22 PM
The entire Covid narrative is BS. This video exposes the “Crimes Against Humanity” committed in
the name of Covid. Please help get the word out:
https://www.algora.com/Algora_blog/2020/10/04/german-corona-investigative-committee
4 0
Reply
David L Oct 21, 2020 12:28 AM
Reply to Tack
That video was REMOVED from youtube for “violating the terms of service”.
1 -1 Reply
Spike Oct 25, 2020 10:49 PM
Reply to David L
No, it’s still there. I just watched it.

0 0 Reply
Jan J Oct 19, 2020 11:43 AM
Funny how the debunkers and obfuscators are out in force on this one, almost 1000 comments, a
huge number of them trying to “debunk” a simple percentage calculation on o cially sanctioned
numbers… So you don’t believe in the o cial WHO numbers and the natural conclusion when it
doesn’t suit your predetermined agenda? You must be some crazy conspiracy theorists
15 0 Reply
Salah Elnagar Oct 19, 2020 11:11 AM
Hopefully, one recognises

the major di ference between Covid19 and Flue in terms of disease development,I.e. Covid actually
invade lung tissues while lung infection in case of Flu is a secondary infection by bacteria where
antibiotics are speci cally e fective
4 -6 Reply
Tim Oct 20, 2020 2:09 AM
Reply to Salah Elnagar
It would be good if rather than just following the latest fear story from the media, you took
two minutes to check if Flu does damage to the lungs.
It does as it turns out. You could have taken 20 seconds to google it (that’s all it took me) but
here is a journal for your reference:
https://erj.ersjournals.com/content/45/5/1463
What you are doing is promulgating the false narrative that The Covid is somehow much
worse than typical lu. There is very little evidence that it is and you provide nothing but
e fective disinformation here in your quote above. Please take the time to check things more
carefully before you spread disinformation. This is a serious global issue and should require at
least 30 seconds on google before you add to the hysteria.
13 -2 Reply
Almondson Oct 18, 2020 10:15 PM
The WHO changed their de nition of the word “pandemic” just before the scamdemic began.
They are con dent in the massive illiteracy and stupidity cultivated by the media and the
education system, so they don’t have to try very hard. Most people do not have the mental
capacity to process any of the information and would not recognise the truth if it was hitting
them in the face with a brick. They are infantilised and operate largely on emotional reactivity
(insecurity, fear, denial), not reason or logic. Everything is being reversed and every ridiculous
falsity becomes fact. Did you know the virus can live for 28 days on your phone !?!? That’s what
“freedom of speech” is for, isn’t it? So that the media can publish whatever BS they please….
13 -1 Reply
der endgegner Oct 25, 2020 10:38 AM
Reply to Almondson
no, they changed it years ago you fucking conspiracist

0 0 Reply
Invisible Oct 18, 2020 8:17 PM
The premise in this article is lawed. Mortality rate is calculated from known cases – i.e. people
that have actually tested positive and/or show symptoms. The estimation of “10% may have been
infected” simply comes from the fact that only a fraction of infected people show symptoms. This
is the same with the lu: many people get infected, some show symptoms (and in this case those
are the only ones counted as “case”; there are usually no lu-tests for asymptotic people), and of
those about 0.14% die.
For Covid there are about 40 Million known cases (symptomatic and/or tested) and over 1 million
deaths, which results in a mortality rate at least 20 times higher than that of the lu!
Note: including asymptomatic patients actually gives a *lower* rate. If we only counted people
with symptoms (like we do with the lu) the mortality rate would look even higher!
5 -12 Reply
Greg Smith Oct 18, 2020 8:37 PM
Reply to Invisible
You do SOUND reasonable, until one looks at the statistical sampling methods employed by
WHO.
Missing data is extrapolated by the multiple imputation approach. This estimates sample
data and of course, plugs the “gaps” for where asymptomatic cases would be esrimated to
occur.
So no, IMO, the comparison is still sound.,

10 0 Reply
Reply to Greg Smith
As I already pointed out: it’s 40 million *con rmed* cases vs. 1 million *con rmed* deaths,
i.e. 2.5% mortality rate.
For comparison e.g. the last lu season in Germany (where I found numbers for actually
lab-con rmed lu cases; for e.g. the US I only found hospitalisations) saw 185893 cases and
476 deaths, i.e. 0.25% mortality. In 2017/2018 (one of the worst seasons on record) it was
334000:1674 = 0.5%.
So even if the WHO numbers for Covid were just estimates and o f by 100%, In luenza
still has a *much* lower mortality rate.
4 -5 Reply
Doston Oct 18, 2020 11:33 PM
Reply to Invisible
The mortality rate for lu is not based solely on con rmed cases through testing. That’s
a false assumption. Flu cases as provided by WHO and other national health
organizations is based on projections rooted in a set of empirical criteria, just as for
COVID-19. Accordingly, the IFR for lu is based on total infections (not con rmed
cases).
9 0 Reply
Invisible Oct 19, 2020 12:59 AM
Reply to Doston
I deliberately chose Germany as an example, because there is a number of

actually con rmed cases available from the RKI. The estimated number of
infections is much higher!
Eg. for the 2017/18 season estimates go up to 9 million infections and 25k deaths in
Germany (i.e. 0.28% estimated mortality). The 334k cases, 60k hospitalisations
and 1674 deaths (0.5%) in 2017/18 *are* in fact *con rmed* cases.
4 -5 Reply
Tim Oct 18, 2020 11:18 PM
Reply to Invisible
You should try and understand data a bit better.
Flu cases are estimated in the US and Europe and everywhere I have seen. They are not
con rmed cases, they are a guess at how many cases of lu, total, there are in any given
season. There is no “ lu con rmation test”, people with lu are seldom tested to see if they
have lu or just a bad cold. Why would you waste time testing? There aren’t really any
treatments for either and things that alleviate symptoms (decongestants / aspirin) work the
same in both. “Take some aspirin, get plenty of rest” is what most doctors will tell most lu
patients most of the time. They will not take a test to see what they really have.
This is clearly a shame for accurate data analysis but is entirely understandable in a world
where collecting accurate data is well down on people priorities (and necessarily so).
So your premise is lawed as you do not understand how data is collected and then
extrapolate from that to give a falsehood….that people with lu are tested, con rmed and that
is the lu count used to give the 0.14% IFR.
Incidentally lu deaths are also estimated.
Why do you think the CDC’s numbers are all nice round numbers?
https://www.cdc.gov/ lu/about/burden/index.html
Do you think the lu infects and kills in round numbers? And do you think when the CDC
estimates lu cases they only estimate cases that would have been symptomatic? Of course
not, that is ridiculous. Their estimate is their guess at the absolute number of lu cases and lu
deaths.
This is a big problem, intelligent people not carefully checking their own assumptions…and
then criticising others based on a huge fallacy. Please take the time to check data carefully
before you accuse others of lawed premises.
One of the major falsehoods now (on top of all the others in this pandemic) is that we are still
measuring gures for the covid outbreak as a single total. Flu seasons typically last around 6
months, the covid outbreak has now been going much longer than that. Summer is ending in
the northern hemisphere and we are seeing a rise in numbers. When this happens with lu
we call it a new season and start the counting again. The lu season in the US typically starts in
October and nishes around April. The lu never really goes away it just quietens. If we give
covid the same treatment (using the US as an example) than we get community spread in late
Feb so the season would end around late August. If you look at a chart for covid cases in the
US, you see a rise in early April, a drop around June a “second wave” that peaks around mid
July then a lattish bit leading to a noticeable rise starting in early October….
(https://www.google.com/search?
q=covid+cases+usa&rlz=1C1CHBD_enNZ777NZ777&oq=covid+cases+us&aqs=chrome.0.0i43
3i457j0i131i433j0j69i57j0j0i131i433j0l2.3743j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8)
So the rst covid season at 6 months (comparing to lu) would have ended late August early
September which ts broadly in the chart. An uptick in October implies sychronisations with
the typical lu season as the Northern Hemisphere enters winter.
Of course there is little discussion of this anywhere that I can nd.
Back of the envelope we had about 183 000 deaths with covid in the US last covid season and
we have around 36 000 deaths so far this season.
This multi season view would seem to t the observed data as deaths are far behind cases this
season. This is not surprising as we know that a bad lu season is normally followed by a mild
one and vice versa. Many of the people susceptible to death from covid died last season.
It is strange how mainstream media and experts have repeatedly stated that this is not lu
which most people understand and I take as meaning this is not comparable to lu. Yet it
keeps doing so many of the same things the lu does again and again.
9 0 Reply
Reply to Tim
‘There is no “ lu con rmation test”‘ – of course there is, In luenza can be easily con rmed
using PCR.
I repeat: the case numbers from Germany were chosen deliberately, because they are
*con rmed* cases. The estimates go much higher (e.g. up to 9 million infections for the
2017/18 season, which lead to around 25k deaths), but the 334k cases (60k
hospitalisations, 1.6k deaths) *are* in fact *con rmed*.
https://in luenza.rki.de/Saisonberichte/2017.pdf – summary on page 13, weekly graph

on page 33; “labordiagnostisch bestätigt” translates to ‘con rmed by lab diagnostics’.
2 -5 Reply
Tim Oct 19, 2020 4:11 AM
Reply to Invisible
Apologies I did not make myself clear there.

If you go to a Doctor it is virtually unheard of that anyone would get a lu test. I am not
saying it is not possible to test for lu, through PCR or other tests however it virtually
never happens. We have all been to a Doctor with lu like symptoms, but has anyone
ever been tested for anything? I have not nor have my children or wife or parents or
any friends or family I have asked. And doctor friends con rms this.
This is important as it begs the question of why we are testing for The Covid much
more than we have ever bothered testing for the lu.
I am unsure where the widely reported 0.1% lu death rate comes from. The CDC data
for the last 10 years shows it’s higher than that more like 0.13%
I don’t understand what relevance you are trying to put into the the Koch data and it
being “con rmed”. The “con rmed cases” in that report are just data points, one of the
the bases of their modelling. You yourself give the example of the estimates being
higher. The Koch report gives great discussion on what they need to do with the data
and why to turn it into meaningful headline numbers. The 1674 gure you give is the
number reported to them. But they themselves admit that both their reports and the
reports that come from IFSG are not a useful basis for calculating lu death. They make
the point that lu death is o ten and easily diagnosed as a di ferent mode of death,
even in hospitals that can test for lu. They also state that using excess death
calculations from ARE and AGI are not useful for calculating lu mortality. Nowhere do
they state that their con rmed cases are somehow more signi cant than any of the
other data they use to come up with estimates. They are just points in models.
You are “carefully” attributing signi cance to data, in a report that the authors do not
put any particular signi cance on.
The point is that they use various means to come up with an estimated gure. That’s
what everyone else does too. And that is what the WHO have done…..estimated cases
to be 10% of the world population.
Above you state: The premise in this article is awed. Mortality rate is calculated from
known cases – i.e. people that have actually tested positive and/or show symptoms. The
estimation of “10% may have been infected” simply comes from the fact that only a
fraction of infected people show symptoms. This is the same with the u: many people get
infected, some show symptoms (and in this case those are the only ones counted as “case”;
there are usually no u-tests for asymptotic people), and of those about 0.14% die.
This is not true. The 0.13% gure from CDC comes from estimates. There will be
measured cases in there, but those measures are just used to populate models. Their
models will account for asymptomatic and mild cases. Why would they not?
Mortality is not calculated from known cases, the Koch report states that in its
discussion titled: In luenza-bedingte Todesfälle(Exzess-Schätzungen
undübermittelte Fälle gemäß IfSG) on page 45. On page 47 table 2 they have a table
with laboratory con rmed deaths and deaths predicted from their excess mortality
model. In 2013 it gives 23 lab con rmed deaths in the whole of Germany and no
excess mortality deaths. You really think in an aging nation of 80 million people there
would have been only 23 deaths from lu i na whole season?!
And if we use the death gure con rmed of 1674 (which the Koch institute themselves
say is not a good basis for extrapolation: Auch die gemäß IfSG
an das RKI übermittelten Todesfälle bilden keineb Grundlage für Hochrechnungen)
and take the con rmed cases you gave of 334k we get a mortality rate of 0.5% which is
far higher than the 0.13% of the last 10 years CDC data anyway.
It is actually di cult to understand what you are saying. But the German data does
not only use con rmed cases and deaths to come up with a straight con rmed
number. They throw those data into a model and get an estimation which is what
everyone else does. So that lu data of cases pretty much never represents “tested
con rmed cases” except within the models to develop the estimates.
7 0 Reply
Reply to Tim
The 0.13% gure from CDC comes from estimates.

That’s why I’m trying to pick a country where good data are available so we can
compare apples to apples. Germany is one such country, and there it turns out
that Covid is at least 10-15 times more deadly than the lu (and the mortality rate
from con rmed cases very much agrees with the rate from estimated numbers for
both diseases).
This can of course be for several reasons, e.g. the disease is actually more deadly in
itself, or we just have much better treatment for the lu. But it doesn’t change the
fact that (currently) Covid has a much higher mortality rate und thus has to be
taken more seriously than the lu.
4 -4 Reply
Tim Oct 19, 2020 11:31 PM
Reply to Invisible
Can you understand German?

I have read the report and cannot follow your logic.
You make much of the labordiagnostisch bestätigt translating to laboratory
con rmed. But that is the rst page on a 40 odd page report.
Large chunks of the report are explaining how they model there data. They
state in the report that the con rmed gures are not valid for extrapolation.
They use various other tweaks and measures to get their estimates. They do
not state anywhere that their nal estimates represent “a estimated
con rmed number” or any other such twisting of the numbers.
They do not even give a death number I could nd they simply point out the
problems in using their number and the number generated by “excess
mortality during peak lu waves”.
You argument makes no sense. There are no “con rmed” headline gures
anywhere including Germany. And in fact in all the gures you give German
lu IFR is considerably higher than 0.13%. This is unsurprising as Germany has
a much older population than the US (45.9 vs 37.9) and Germany has a
growing obesity problem.
3 0 Reply
Reply to Tim
They *also* do models. So what? That doesn’t mean we cannot use the raw
data (in this case the lab-con rmed numbers) for an apples-to-apples
comparison with similar data on Covid.
The number of deaths is mentioned on page 46: “In der Saison 2017/18
wurden 1.674 Todesfälle mit In luenzavirusinfektion gemäß IfSG an das
RKI übermittelt.” You may notice that that’s deaths “with In luenza
infection”, not “from In luenza” – the same metric that is used for Covid-
related deaths. Again: apples to apples.
And yes, I do understand German quite well: it’s my native language.
2 -2 Reply
Tim Oct 20, 2020 6:07 AM
Reply to Invisible
You are absolutely not comparing apples with apples.
You are cherry picking two rough raw data points from within a 100
page study that speci cally says one of the data points you have
chosen is not useful for calculating lu mortality rate.
The sampling methods are not comparable to covid sampling. One is

surveillance sampling, the other is a brute measure taken during a
pandemic. Access to testing is completely di ferent between the two
samples. “Feeling unwell, get tested” is sprayed all over media, all over
the world currently. Does that happen during lu season? The WHO
has a speci c page for reporting covid death (but none for lu). There
are nancial incentives to report covid death. There are none for lu,
and most of the time no one cares weather an old person dying of
Pneumonia died had lu or one of the cocktail of “common cold”
viruses. The RKI even discuss some of these problems themselves. You
really believe there will be no sampling bias in comparing these raw
numbers?
You might more legitimately compare the modelled lu numbers to

the unmodelled covid numbers…..that would be more sound
statistically than what you are doing.
Further:
Für eine Exzess-Schätzung der In uenza-bedingten Todesfälle sind die in

der AGI registrierten Todesfälle wegen ARE aber nicht geeignet, da
Todesfälle sehr selten sind und in dem vergleichsweise kleinen Sentinel
nicht repräsentativ
erfasst werden können. Auch die gemäß IfSG
an das RKI übermittelten Todesfälle bilden keine
Grundlage für Hochrechnungen
That is, the numbers given to the RKI by the IfSG are not a suitable
basis for higher calculation. Why do you think they make this
statement? If the number was useful on it’s own why wouldn’t they
just put it in their model? Because it’s a very, very rough number.
Further:
Im Gegensatz zu anderen Erkrankungen wird In luenza auf dem
Totenschein häu g nicht als Todesursache eingetragen,
selbst wenn im Krankheitsverlauf eine In luenza abordiagnostisch
bestätigt wurde und wesentlich zum Tod beigetragen hat (siehe
auchTab. 2). Es ist die Erfahrung vieler Länder, dass sich Todesfälle, die
der In luenza zuzuschreiben sind, in anderen Todesursachen, wie z. B.
Diabetes mellitus,
Pneumonie oder »Krankheiten des Herz-Kreislauf-Systems«
verbergen können. Daher ist es international üblich, die der In luenza
zugeschriebene Sterblichkeit mittels statistischer Verfahren zu
schätzen, indem Gesamttodesfallzahlen (Statistik
der Sterbefälle ohne Totgeborene, nachträglich beurkundete
Kriegssterbefälle und gerichtliche Todeserklärungen)
herangezogen werden.
So Flu is easily confused with other deaths (under reported) and as

such various statistical models involving excess death are o ten used to
get a better number.
You are making a meaningless comparison. There is too much room for
error in the raw data. The Koch institute themselves don’t use it in that
way, because they understand the issues with it. Read the report more
carefully and you might understand that as well.
2 0 Reply
Reply to Tim
“Exzess-Mortalität” = ‘mortality displacement’. That’s *not* what I

am calculating here, hence this quote does not apply.
As for under-reporting: even if the numbers are o f by a factor of 2

(which is unlikely) it doesn’t change the end result of my
comparison.
1 -1 Reply
Tim Oct 21, 2020 12:10 AM
Reply to Invisible
Read the RKI report.
In it’s discussion of calculating lu mortality it discusses two

methods. The excess mortality model AND the IfSG supplied
mortality gure which is the one you take and misuse (1674).
They state that neither is useful for calculating mortality
clearly:
Auch die gemäß IfSG an das RKI übermittelten Todesfälle bilden
keineGrundlage für Hochrechnungen
So the quote does apply it is relative and it contextualizes the

line above that says the gure you arti cially place importance
on is no use for higher extrapolation.
Supposedly German is your rst language, that is what that

statement above plainly says.
To be honest I’m very suspicious of your ability to speak

German. You state:
Exzess-Mortalität” = ‘mortality displacement
Why would you not just describe that as excess mortality? It

can be translated directly. Unless your translating app said it
was that.
I repeat you have taken 2 points of data, from a 100 page

report, attributed completely false signi cance to them
(against the beliefs of the reports authors) and then
attempted to compare them to “con rmed” German covid
gures.
You are absolutely not comparing apples to apples what you

are doing is false and misleading and you should retract what
you are saying.
Although you are clearly being at least disingenuous if not

outright lying I will humour your data.
Using your “con rmed” lu gures you get 1674 deaths and
330k or 0.5% mortality rate. Lets stick with RKI
https://www.rki.de/DE/Content/InfAZ/N/Neuartiges_Corona
virus/Situationsberichte/Okt_2020/2020-10-20-en.pdf?
__blob=publicationFile
373167 cases and 9836 deaths for mortality rate of 2.6%. It’s
worth noting that the daily gure gives a mortality rate of
0.68%. This is re lected globally. As we move into this second
covid season it is not surprising that the mortality rate will be
much lower (even without including asymptomatic).
You state:
That’s why I’m trying to pick a country where good data are
available so we can compare apples to apples. Germany is one
such country, and there it turns out that Covid is at least 10-15
times more deadly than the u (and the mortality rate from
con rmed cases very much agrees with the rate from
estimated numbers for both diseases).
But in my working above we see that covid appears to be

about 5 times more fatal than lu. Where do you get 10-15
times from? Is this more “apples with apples” magic?
You say:
and the mortality rate from con rmed cases very much agrees
with the rate from estimated numbers for both diseases
RKI o fer “con rmed” data but there are no estimated covid
data in that report. Where do you get your estimated data
from that con rm as you describe above?
I struggled to nd it. I did ne this from DW
https://www.dw.com/en/coronavirus-bavarian-town-study-
shows-fewer-asymptomatic-infections/a-54696184
They quote RKI estimates of asymptomatic rates being

between 2.5 and 5 times reported cases (I should note that I
could not nd the referenced report and nd it weird that RKI
made that statement a ter measuring less than a third of the
towns population).
Let’s be generous to you and say it is 2.5 times. That gives us a

1.3% mortality rate for covid.
You use data (I don’t know what your source data is) for
estimates of lu:
Eg. for the 2017/18 season estimates go up to 9 million

infections and 25k deaths in Germany (i.e. 0.28% estimated
mortality).
So comparing estimates with estimates covid appears to be a

little less than 5 times more fatal. Again not 10 to 15 times.
You do not understand the data you are using and are making
false comparisons. You are mistakenly overblowing the danger
of covid just like so many others.
Stop spreading fear based on poor understanding of data. Or

wilfull misleading.
2 0 Reply
Reply to Tim
373167 cases and 9836 deaths for mortality rate of 2.6%. It’s
worth noting that the daily gure gives a mortality rate of
0.68%.
Eg. for the 2017/18 season estimates go up to 9 million

infections and 25k deaths in Germany (i.e. 0.28% estimated
mortality).
I’m using the total case number in both instances, 0.28 vs. 2.6
is about a factor 10. And that’s for the most deadly lu season
in recent history.
When we use the numbers of more normal lu seasons (like
2018/19 or 2019/20) it’s more like a factor 15. I gave this range
simply because lu seasons are not the same every year.
As for the translation: yes, ‘excess mortality’ is also correct.

https://www.dict.cc/?s=%C3%9Cbersterblichkeit
I used ‘mortality displacement’ as this is the term that’s usually
used in statistics.
2 -1 Reply
Tim Oct 21, 2020 1:11 AM
Reply to Invisible
No you are absolutely not.
The 0.28 for lu is based on an extrapolated model.

Asymptomatic lu will be included in that.
Which is what I said from the start, when I rst challenged your
“con rmed data” nonsense.
Now we have come full circle. This is ridiculous.
You are comparing extrapolated lu data to the non

extrapolated data for covid (not including asymptomatic).
If you factor in asymptomatic to covid (using the RKIs most
optimistic data) you get 1.3% mortality shown above.
That is around a 4.6 times di ference of 0.28.
That is actually comparing apples to apples, not the twisty

turny made up nonsense you are talking.
Again where is your extrapolated lu data for Germany for the
last ten years? You make the claim that 2017/18 season was the
worst season in recent history. Compared to what? Where is
your recent German lu history data set? Please provide a link.
Looking at Euromomo data:

https://www.euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps/
You can see Germany had a larger surge in excess mortality in
2018/2019 then 2017/2018. What is more the surge in excess
mortality in Germany for this most recent winter….is not even
there at all and certainly less than the last 2 years.
Yet somehow covid is 20 times more dangerous according to
you.
I repeat stop spreading fear based on either your ignorance or

on a willful twisting of facts to paint an untrue picture.
We are spending trillions and crushing the truly most

vulnerable in the planet, the poor. You are making it worse for
them spreading such disinformation.
2 0 Reply
Reply to Tim
*sigh* that’s why I was _also_ making the comparison using the
con rmed cases, which you didn’t like either…
That is around a 4.6 times di erence of 0.28.
Ok, ne, lets settle at 4.6x higher mortality rate then. Which –
surprise, surprise – still makes Covid signi cantly more
dangerous than In luenza (even when compared to the worst
lu season in recent years). Which was exactly the point I was
trying to make in the rst place – thank you.
2 -1 Reply
Tim Oct 21, 2020 11:30 PM
Reply to Invisible
sigh
Hundreds and hundreds of words, just to get you to sort of

admit you were clearly misusing data to support your narrative.
Which is what I said from the start.
I don’t like it when people misuse data to paint a false

narrative. That’s how this has cost many trillions globally
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/oct/13/imf-
covid-cost-world-economic-outlook
and counting. And the poor will pay for it the most, as always.
So this is serious stu f, maybe not in the west where you can
just work from home. But that’s not the reality for billions of
people in poorer parts of the world. But hey screw them right
you can just make some crap up to try and look clever.
You still supply no supporting data you just make claims.
4.6 times is still your number not mine. I agree with Kit above
that it’s pretty much the same as lu around 0.14%. You were
the one trying to say that wasn’t the case. I was just explaining
how your position might have been correctly argued seeing as
you couldn’t do it yourself and you don’t seem to understand
the RKI data that you misuse. You’re welcome.
Even if it was the number we have nothing like 4.6 times the
typical response to lu. Why?
4.6 times is not really signi cant. There is a simple table here
that shows lu in the last 10 years
Don’t worry you don’t have to read any long reports, which is
clearly not a strong point of yours.
The lu season mortality of 2012/2013 was more than 3.5 times

that of the preceding year. 2017/18 was 5 times 2011/2012. In
that season the CDC best estimate was 61000 deaths.
The only reason I know this is because of where we are now.

Otherwise I would not have had a clue that around 60k
Americans died of lu in 2017/18. I expect you didn’t either, I
expect 99% of the population didn’t. Yet I’m pretty sure
everyone, everywhere knows about covid. Why not?
Funny there were no lockdowns. No mass masking. No social

distancing. No daily totals. Certainly there was a cost on that,
but not many trillions of dollars. Not global recession. Not
millions and millions of hours or productivity wasted looking at
this “problem”. Why is that?
Clearly you are not interested in answering those why’s so

maybe you should run along and let the grown ups think
about this.
2 -1 Reply
Hemphope Oct 26, 2020 8:00 PM
Reply to Invisible
In 17/18 there died about 25000 people in Germany during In luenza

season! … then u see, its the same…
And perhaps in England and USA people dont know: Drosten is a lier,
2009 he lied about the Pig- lu and now he did the same, he never
teached students, but has 2 “teaching-chairs” and is called a
“professor” …. how could that be? Hes doctoral thesis is made in June
2020, more than 1 month a ter some investigative journalists asked for
it, now they say, the original was destroyed by water, they had to
remade it, but there was nothing before, not even in the national
libary! … then a “fact-checker” (Mainstreammedias) came, and sayd
“there it is, we checked it, it exists” …. but no word about “since june
2020” … naly, the now visible stu f is for sure new made, there are
di ferent misstakes they made, by doing Drostens doctoral thesis 20
years later …. this world wide LIE musst be destroyed fast!!! Bevore
all this supersuckers come to my Hometown Lucerne to xing the
NWO (WEF 2021 at Lucerne)
Dont be stupid, we need to get our countys back from the global-
capitalism!!!
0 0 Reply
Daisy Oct 19, 2020 12:20 PM
Reply to Invisible
Except Kary Mullis, inventor of the RT PCR test, speci cally stated – on many occasions
– that his test cannot detect infectious viruses, therefore should NOT be used as a
diagnostic tool. Results are also dependent on the number of magni cations – which
is very much open to abuse. The standard is 30 mags, but evidence is emerging that,
in the UK (and probably everywhere else, since this is globally controlled), the
magni cation being used is 45+. This means the test can pick up bits of antibodies
from years ago. The lu vaccine, of course, will be picked up easily and give a positive
result. I cannot trust a test where the inventor says it can’t test for viruses and the
result can be turned up or down at will, depending on the agenda of those behind
the testing. This is evident by all the new ‘cases’ in perfectly healthy people. From a
fatally lawed ‘test’.
10 0 Reply
Paula Felber Oct 22, 2020 1:08 AM
Reply to Invisible
You do realize that just because you test positive for the Covid19 doesn’t mean that you died
from Covid! If you are shot in the head with a gun and may test positive for Covid is never by
de nition a Covid death! However this is why we have sooo many Covid death! The damn
gunshot would to the head killed you not Covid! Yet here we stand with 200,000+ Covid
deaths that are false Covid deaths and you want to add them to the mortality rate! A lay
person not in the medical eld would tell you cause of death was a gunshot wound to the
head! Cancer, Heart Attacks due to late medical care or postponed surgeries killed them not
Covid! Since when are major surgeries not a priority but abortions are???? If you can’t see the
writing on the wall there is something wrong with you!
1 0 Reply
Stephan Oct 22, 2020 5:42 PM
Reply to Paula Felber
This fairytale comes up over and over again… of course people who obviously died for
unrelated reasons are *not* counted towards Covid. To be counted (according WHO
guidelines) the death has to be related to respiratory issues.
0 0 Reply
Hemphope Oct 26, 2020 8:10 PM
Reply to Stephan
RKI con rmed a skydiver dead as Covid dead!

They also con rm Covid death, when u was positive 1 Month ago, and die from
something else, aslong u was tested positive before, this is a fact!
Here the politicans con rm what i told: https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=YaMdH2x3Hjw
and if u want to get sure, Covid is a hoax, then look at the o cial statistics from
Germany!
https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Querschnitt/Corona/_Gra k/_Interaktiv/woec
hentliche-sterbefallzahlen-jahre.html?nn=209016
Its the biggest Lie in the World!!!

0 0 Reply
María Oct 18, 2020 5:55 PM
Si esto es cierto, ¿por qué seguimos usando bozales y con nan las ciudades???? ¿Dónde puedo
conseguir estas declaraciones de forma o cial…?. Gracias
https://drive.google.com/ le/d/1GEVvxrr9nxFV53EprWqnNKcGUyJu52Ns/view?usp=sharing
0 0 Reply
Faith Oct 19, 2020 7:16 AM
Reply to María
Aqui: https://www.who.int/news-room/events/detail/2020/10/05/default-
calendar/executive-board-special-session-on-the-covid19-response cliquea Session 1” y vaya
al lugar 1:01:33 para escuchar la frase exacta
0 0 Reply
Chris Weisdorf Oct 17, 2020 9:48 AM
Declaring a pandemic, which was disseminated by a deliberately super-hyped media, followed by

an even more super-hyped, non-peer reviewed, closed source model of millions of deaths a few
days later caused mass hysteria and panic.
The imposition of the unprecedented lockdowns worldwide still a few days later greatly ampli ed
that panic. Caregivers ran out of long-term care facilities and didn’t return. The very people who
were the most vulnerable to ANY type of illness, and especially to medical neglect, we’re
abandoned to stew in their own shit. This happened literally, here where I live.
Many of these people died of heart attacks and strokes brought on by the extreme stress which,
in turn, was precipitated by the rst-ever lockdowns in human history. Worldwide. Suddenly.
With zero evidence that they would work, or have worked in the past. Because no population-
human, monkey, ferret or even rat- had ever been subjected to a lockdown previously in any study
or experimental setting to control the transmission of an infectious disease.
Lastly, in the US an average of 235,000 people per month have died of all causes since 2017. That
number was 238,000 monthly last year. This year? 236,000 per month, even a ter taking into
account the excess deaths when the lockdowns were imposed.
Please repeat a ter me: *No pandemic*. The lockdowns, themselves, killed at least 200,000
people. This is what happens when “the experts”, the government and the fawning media do the
equivalent of shout re in a crowded theater many thousands of times over. This is tantamount to
war crimes and they must be held to account. They WILL be held to account.
19 -2 Reply
Pedro Amaral Couto Oct 8, 2020 6:38 PM

The math in that rst source is faulty.
It’s mixing a rough estimation of infections with the number of known deaths.
Notice the estimation is much greater than the number of known cases, that’s why the
“calculated” fatality rate is very small.
If we only use the numbers of currently known cases and known deaths, we get:
1,099,641 * 100 / 38,947,653 ~= 2.8%
If we use the estimation:

38,947,653 / 780000000 ~= 0.05
1,099,641 * (1 / 0.05) ~= 21992820
21,992,820 * 100 / 780,000,000 ~= 2.8%
9 -17 Reply
PeeJay Oct 15, 2020 10:09 PM
Reply to Pedro Amaral Couto
So what you are doing is you are multiplying the deaths by the the di ference between
estimated infected and actual con rmed infected. Are you sure you know how percentages
and math work ? You have X deaths that is a known value, you have con rmed infected which
is a known value and then you have estimated infected and using those three you ESTIMATE
almost 22 million dead from covid and using that out of thin air estimation you derive the IFR,
do you think people are this stupid ?
10 -6 Reply
Reply to PeeJay
“Are you sure you know how percentages and math work ?”
Yes, and I hope I do since my father is a Math teacher and I’m a So tware Engineer.
This applies what is called the “rule of three” to calculate percentages:

1,099,641 * 100 / 38,947,653 ~= 2.8%
I did this to show several steps:

38,947,653 / 780000000 ~= 0.05
1,099,641 * (1 / 0.05) ~= 21992820
21,992,820 * 100 / 780,000,000 ~= 2.8%
But it’s equivalent to this:

(1,099,641 * 780,000,000 / 38,947,653) * 100 / 780,000,000 ~= 2.8%
As you might know, the result of both calculations is exactly: 2.81959230769

It’s clearer in the second case that I’m not “multiplying the deaths by the the di ference
between estimated infected and actual con rmed infected”. The “1 / 0.05” is the inverse of
5%, not a di ference of something.
The author of the post mixed a rough estimation of the total infections in the world with
the known number of deaths to get the fatality rate, which should be obviously wrong. I
told that to a friend who is a Math teacher and she laughed.
You have to calculate the number of deaths estimations according to the provided rough
estimation of the total infections. The estimated number of infections is approximately 20
times the number of known cases. I’m assuming the estimated number of deaths should
be 20 times the number of known deaths.
That’s why I did:

(1,099,641 * 780,000,000 / 38,947,653) = 22022379.11485963
which is the same as:
1,099,641 * (1 / (38,947,653 / 780000000)) = 22022379.11485963
Amazing! The results are the same
1,099,641 * 100 / 38,947,653 = 2.8233819378
(1,099,641 * 780,000,000 / 38,947,653) * 100 / 780,000,000 = 2.8233819378
Again: Amazing! The results are exactly the same.

At least if you don’t know how to calculate percentages.
The numbers are exactly the same because I know how to do it.
8 -10 Reply
Tim Oct 16, 2020 1:53 AM
Umm the deaths aren’t an estimate.

In this presentation the WHO accept that deaths are slightly above 1 million. This is
the widely quoted global gure. Based on, well, a bunch of dead people.
Death is not asymptomatic and you can’t have a minor case of death that could easily
be confused with other minor cases of death. Death is binary.
There is a lot of debate around what constitutes a covid death so the number may be
a bit higher but it may also be a bit lower. But most people use that as the gure.
However case count is much more di cult. There are large numbers of asymptomatic
cases and mild cases that can easily be confused with common cold or lu.
The problem here is not anyone’s math I’m sure your math is sound. The problem is
you made an incorrect assumption right at the start.
Maybe you misunderstood the article or have not been following this as closely as
some others such as the author of this article.
13 -3 Reply
Reply to Tim

Tim: “In this presentation the WHO accept that deaths are slightly above 1
million.”
The audio of the presentation here doesn’t say: “deaths are slightly above 1
million”
The value on Worldometer – which was used in the post – are the con rmed
number of deaths caused by Covid-19, not the estimated deaths.
The rough estimation of infections (10%) is about the uncon rmed number of
deaths, which are unknown and probably extrapolated from the con rmed cases.
Either use only the con rmed values only the estimations.
Of course mixing estimations and con rmations imply a smaller fatality rate that
might not make sense, for instance, when everybody infected dies.
4 -5 Reply
Tim Oct 17, 2020 3:04 AM
Hi Pedro thanks for your reply.
The audio says “we have passed the grim total of 1 million deaths”.
The “slightly above one million” are my own words but that is what the
worldometer total is. Either way I don’t see how this is important. You seem to
want to have a semantic argument. Was your Father a maths teacher and your
Mother a politician? Or lawyer?
I did not state that the Worldometer death total was estimated.
Your statement “The rough estimation of infections (10%) is about the

uncon rmed number of deaths, which are unknown and probably
extrapolated from the con rmed cases.” is an assumption. So when you use
that number in your example above you are using an estimation (780 million)
with a con rmed value (deaths). But you insist you can only use estimations
with estimations and con rmed with con rmed. Does that only apply to other
people and not to you?
There is no basis for using only estimations or only con rmed numbers. As
long as you are clear on what you are doing it is perfectly legitimate to mix real
numbers with assumed numbers. Science is full of this. You yourself, use the
word assume many times in your mathematical working. Almost all modelling
is full of assumptions, connected to some real world observations. If
everything was already a con rmed number than what would we need the
math for?
In your yoghurt factory example you state: If all strawberry lavor yogurts in
that sample were lawed, using the other’s logic:
40 / 4,000 * 100 = 1%
Which is ridiculous! That assumes only the yogurts in the sample are lawed.
The simple fact is that in a truly random sample in the real world, it would be
possible to pick a sample where by chance, you picked only lawed yoghurts.
Gaussian distribution is rare in truly random environments (like the real world
which we are talking about with covid) and random, unpredictable events
(black swans) happen more o ten then we would expect. For the purposes of
the example (universe) you are describing mathematically here your math is
sound. Of course a real yoghurt factory has much more in play then the 4 or 5
factors you are talking about. Millions and million of things could a fect the
lavour of the yoghurt being one lavour or the other. Many of them we would
not even know about or understand. The world is complex and random.
This is the problem with modelling. It is impossible to model the world

mathematically. It is one of the great travesties of this pandemic…the constant
reference to mathematical modelling. The modelling (although considerably
more complex than your model above) is worthless. It is impossible to model
the world as it currently is, it is simply too complex and there are so many
unknowns and so many assumptions that the output is worthless. Harder still
to model a hypothetical future world. This is chaos theory. For a great, simple
explanation of chaos theory go here https://www.iheart.com/podcast/105-
stu f-you-should-know-26940277/episode/how-chaos-theory-changed-the-
universe-29467341/
Trillions of dollars have been spent on modelling weather and we have many
times trillions of data points from all over the planet and going back hundreds
of years. Yet the possibility of a weather prediction being correct just a few
weeks from now is virtually zero. We all know this from our own experience.
Neil Ferguson predicted 5 million dead in the US and half a million dead in
the UK and he (and Imperial college) are widely regarded as gold standard in
Epidemiology. You can see some criticism of his modelling here
https://forecasters.org/blog/2020/06/14/forecasting-for-covid-19-has-failed/
buggy programming was a big problem something you probably have some
understanding of (programming generally I mean, I am not accusing you of
being a buggy programmer!).
There is discussion of his other modelling failures here:
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/six-questions-that-neil-ferguson-
should-be-asked
Anyone with a basic understanding of chaos theory would nd these failures

utterly unsurprising.
Your rule of three may be sound in the example above where you are existing
in a world of just three numbers. Cases, deaths, IFR.
The problem is the world that the pandemic exists in is not only ruled by three
numbers. It is ruled by trillions of numbers. 7.8 billion humans for one (which
is also an estimate).
When we put your sound maths, back into the real world we have a
conundrum. Where are the missing 20 million dead that your formula gives?
20 million dead is a big number. It is over three times the amount of Jews the
Nazis are estimated to have exterminated in WWII. Where are all these dead
covid victims? As you say above this number is ridiculous. It is not merely good
enough, in the real world to say “my math is sound” if the math gives absurd
outcomes. You have to have an explanation of those results that ts your
observation. So I ask again, where are the 20 million extra dead?
This is what I meant by my suspicion that you do not truly understand the real
world problem. This is not a computer program with two states 0 or 1 and
bunch of xed rules and scripts to make a computer do something. Even the
best super computer is absurdly primitive compared to a single bacterium.
And no disrespect to your math teacher Father or your math teacher friend but
I was not taught chaos theory or black swan theory by any of my maths
teachers. Or Heisenberg Uncertainty, which also supports the absolute
impossibility of predicting the future.
My explanation of the missing 700+ million cases is simple. As many as 90% of

cases are asymptomatic, the disease is highly infectious, lockdowns / masking /
social distancing are all largely futile (because they do not recognise how
humans act they rather have a perfect world view of always rational human
behaviour….another absurdity) and even if you do show symptoms most
people experience mild symptoms (sore throat, runny nose) that may not be
“scary” enough to go and get tested. People have been scared so they might
not want to risk going to a hospital where they might get infected, many poor
countries do not have testing and even wealthy countries don’t always have
enough. There is no real incentive to get tested, unless you are very
unwell…..and the very unwell from covid are a tiny tiny fraction of the
population who catch it.
Again what is your explanation for your 20 million missing dead?

5 -1 Reply
Reply to Tim
Tim, it seems most of your comment is about questioning models and

values, which is completely irrelevant here. It’s what is called “red
herring”.
The author in the post made a “reduction ad absurdum” argument. It

assumes – for the sake of the argument – the values are correct, then
shows they imply a ridiculous conclusion, therefore there most something
wrong with at least one of them. In my comments, it doesn’t matter if the
models and values are correct or wrong. What matters is if the argument in
the most is valid and sound. Sorry, I noticed many people don’t focus on
that here, but I’m going to ignore ideas that are irrelevant to answer that
question.
The Worldometers only shows the numbers of con rmations: (

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/about/, ex: “Total deaths =
cumulative number of deaths among detected cases.” )
It’s like the yogurts that were tested. In the example I said, the number of
lawed yogurts passed 9. 10 is greater than 9, we don’t know if there are
more (most probably there are) and how many. We also don’t know how
many strawberry lavor yogurts we made. 4,000 is an estimation, an
educated guess.
Some people might disagree with the tests, the estimations, and the
numbers, but that’s completely irrelevant when evaluating the argument
which results:
40 / 4,000 * 100 = 1%
And you said that is ridiculous:
“Which is ridiculous! That assumes only the yogurts in the sample are
lawed. The simple fact is that in a truly random sample in the real world,
it would be possible to pick a sample where by chance, you picked only
lawed yoghurts.”
And the argument in the post assumes only the only people who died by
Covid-19 is among those who were con rmed (again: it’s irrelevant if we
agree with the con rmations).
According to you, it’s ridiculous to divide the con rmed number of lawed
yogurts by the estimated number of yogurts to calculate a percentage of
lawed yogurts, but it’s ne to divide the con rmed number of deaths by
the estimated number of infections to calculate the fatality rate. It seems (I
might be wrong) your argument to defend the post logic is:
1) in the audio it was said “we have passed the grim total of 1 million
deaths”, which is equivalent to “slightly above one millions” and
(curiously) the number of deaths in Worldometer is slightly above one
million.
2) there are 20 million missing dead in the world
3) therefore, it’s legit to divide the number of con rmed deaths by the
number of estimated infections to conclude
My replies:
1)
In the video, it is said: “(…) around the world and equally so in terms of
deaths last week we reached a grim and tragic milestone of one
million deaths reported on covert (…)”
You omitted the expression “reported on convert”. There’s a di ference

between reported or con rmed deaths and the real number of deaths,
which are unknown.
2)
Your question “(…) what is your explanation for your 20 million missing
dead?” is a loaded question. It assumes there are 20 million missing dead
people and it assumes that is mentioned in the post (it’s not).
I suppose you easily may nd the information about excess mortality in

this year compared to the other years:
* https://ourworldindata.org/excess-mortality-covid
*
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeaths
andmarriages/deaths/datasets/weeklyprovisional guresondeathsregist
eredinenglandandwales
*
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeaths
andmarriages/deaths/bulletins/deathsregisteredweeklyinenglandandw
alesprovisional/weekending10april2020
* https://www.statnews.com/2020/08/03/measuring-excess-mortality-
gives-clearer-picture-pandemics-true-burden/
If there aren’t 20 million dead people missing, that doesn’t require an

explanation. You might not agree with the numbers, but that’s irrelevant.
What really matters is what’s the argument and if it is a valid argument.
I mentioned my father’s profession and my profession because I was

asked if I can calculate percentages and do the math. It seems to me that’s
relevant to answer the question. Your sarcastic rhetorical question (“Was
your Father a maths teacher and your Mother a politician? Or lawyer?”) was
pointless. Do you have some need to make those questions here? I would
like to get an answer.
0 -2 Reply
There’s something missing in my reply.

I said there’s “a di ference between reported or con rmed deaths and
the real number of deaths, which are unknown” and showed charts
indicating a substantial mortality excess compared with previous
years.
But some might keep assuming the number of “deaths reported on

covert” and the number of estimated deaths must be similar. A ter all,
it’s easier to miss infected people than dead people.
But there’s also an assumption that there are more deaths by Covid-19
than reported:
* https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/new-study-
estimates-coronavirus-death-rate-28-higher-than-reported-count
* https://www.news-medical.net/news/20200623/COVID-19-deaths-
most-likely-being-underreported-in-the-US-says-GlobalData.aspx
* https://medicalxpress.com/news/2020-10-covid-deaths-
underestimated.html
You might disagree, but that’s irrelevant. If it’s believed the real
number of deaths by Covid-19 is much greater than the number of
reported deaths by Covid-19 than the argument in the post is
fallacious and people justifying the calculation are making a
strawman argument.
0 -1 Reply
You won’t nd many buyers for your ersatz expertise here. I

recommend reddit. Neither you nor anybody else talking about
“covid deaths” have got a clue so please stop adding more noise
here.
0 0 Reply
Tim Oct 18, 2020 3:36 AM
Hi Pedro
First of all I apologise for causing o fense about your Mother. It was
meant to be witty but clearly missed the mark. Reasonable discourse
should be based around respect I meant no disrespect.
The point is it doesn’t matter what our degrees are or what our parents
do, what matters is the force of our logical arguments.
I note that you have not addressed the fact that you have repeatedly
claimed that it is not relevant to mix con rmed facts with real facts.
You say:
“Either use only the con rmed values only the estimations.”
However confusingly in your rst post you state:

If we use the estimation:
38,947,653 / 780000000 ~= 0.05
1,099,641 * (1 / 0.05) ~= 21992820
21,992,820 * 100 / 780,000,000 ~= 2.8%
780000000 is a WHO estimation which you have used in the above

calculation which you than readily intermingle with Worldometer
gures which you use as xed observations. Care to explain?
My point about questioning models is very much relevant as you have

applied a mathematical model (the rule of three) to gures used by
the author above. Those numbers represent real world observations. If
you are doing a math example in class (like your yoghurt example)
then numbers are just numbers useful for illustrating how to do
calculations. But numbers are also symbols. In this case the number
your mathematical model generates (21992820) stands for something.
That is the death of almost 22 million people. That is a signi cant
event for a model to predict. It should require careful evidential
support. You provide none.
I’m glad you brought up excess death. Here is the all european excess
mortality data from euromomo: https://www.euromomo.eu/graphs-
and-maps/
You can see there is quite a spike in excess mortality across Europe in
the most recent winter period. But spikes occur every winter as you can
also see on the charts. The peak of the chart in 2020 looks to be
around 25% higher than the peak of 2017. Worse for sure, but worthy
of the global panic we have seen? I think not. And this is a tiny sample
set going back just three years!
More importantly, according to the rule of three model you have
applied to the data the current worldometer death gures should be
over 2000% higher. Care to explain this discrepancy?
Personally I nd it a little lazy that you use a simplistic mathematical
model to model real world data that is extremely important and come
up with frankly very di cult to believe results, and then not fail to
present supporting real world data but expect me to do it for you.
The question “where are the 22 million dead in the real world
projected by your model” is not in any way loaded. I am sorry but you
are being utterly disingenuous there. Note I am not questioning your
mathematical ability or the accuracy of your application of the rule of
three. But when you apply it to the real world you get very wayward
results from what is actually observed. That means, either your
mathematical model is wrong to be applied here because it clearly
gives the wrong results. Or it is correct to apply it, as you seem to
believe, in which case you have to explain where the extra 20 million
dead are.
To me it is clearly wrong. Like all mathematical models have been
throughout this panic. That is why I went into long a explanation of
the problems with mathematical models trying to predict the world.
They always do a poor job, because the world is very complex. Your
model is no di ferent it has done a very poor job of predicting the real
world as evidenced by about 20 million missing dead people.
It would be helpful if you could keep track of your own arguments.

Above you write:
And you said that is ridiculous:

awed. The simple fact is that in a truly random sample in the real
world, it would be possible to pick a sample where by chance, you
picked only awed yoghurts.”
awed”
are your words not mine. Go back and read your yoghurt example. You
believe it is ridiculous to assume that all the yoghurts in the sample
are lawed. I do not which is why my words start with “The simple
fact………”. I then go on to try and explain to you about non gaussian
distributions (which occur most commonly in nature) and black swan
events which also occur far more frequently than predicted. These
things dovetail with chaos theory….these are all things you should
understand Pedro, because if you did you would realise how di cult it
is to mathematically model the world. Certainly more di cult than
just applying the rule of three or writing a computer program that
exists in a nite universe with a xed set of rules.
You again keep getting hung up on semantics, which I would purport

to be the true red herring in our discussion.
You state: You omitted the expression “reported on convert”. There’s

a di ference between reported or con rmed deaths and the real
number of deaths, which are unknown.
This is bizzare as the basis of everyone’s argument here is that we
accept the death gure as is (although I believe it is too high and have
given evidence to support). Others believe it is too low, I have heard
recent reports that it should be at least 500k higher. If we are generous
and double that we are still only at just over 2 million. Your model
predicts 10 times that.
That aside, this is my whole point. Everything is unknown. All data is
incomplete, imperfect and subject to bias. That is why all the models
are so o ten, so badly wrong. And science knows this. Even when they
are not making assumptions, the data sets modellers use are o ten
incomplete. This is why no notice should have been taken of Neil
Fergusson and his outrageous fear mongering. His models were
nonsense and were always going to be.
And in this case so is yours I’m afraid. It simply does not come even
close to the real world observations. A precept of science is that a
model must provide accurate observations and predictions. Yours does
not. It may be that your model is correct and there are in fact extra
deaths somewhere….but it’s your model so it’s up to you to show where
they are. What is loaded about that?
The author has not made an absurd claim. He has made a claim that
ts a lot of the data. And who uses non conspiratorial sources that
many others do (Worldometer and the WHO). The CDC best estimate
of covid IFR is 0.73% versus an average of 0.13% for lu for the last 10
years
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-
scenarios.html so within about 6 times of each other. But the gures
you are generating are 20x more than observed.
The real world is not like a computer Pedro. The math is not the same it
is far far more complex. A single protein within a bacteria can fold in
thousands of ways depending on ph, chemicals in the cell plasm,
temperature, enzymatic activity and many more factors. We don’t even
understand that process. There might be millions of proteins in a
single cell, at any given time. So how do you propose to make useful
observations on something complex like a pandemic with the rule of
three….or any mathematical model we currently have.
You can’t, it’s not your math that’s missing it’s an understanding of how
complex the world really is.
Unfortunately for the millions of poor people in the world who will be
hit hardest by this over reaction you are far from the only person who
does not seem to understand this.
4 0 Reply
Reply to Tim
Tim:
“780000000 is a WHO estimation which you have used in the above

calculation which you than readily intermingle with Worldometer
gures which you use as xed observations. Care to explain?”
My point is that both reported numbers of infections and deaths

should not be assumed to be the e fective numbers of infections
and deaths. They’re not according to o cial sources, as you seem
to agree. If the argument is supposed an “argumentum ad
absurdum”, it should rst assume all relevant propositions are true
in order to e fectively conclude the absurd of them.
Excluding the calculation to nd 10% of the population, the

author’s post merely applied the rule of three like this:
1,061,539 / 780,000,000 * 100 = 0.14%
The point was to conclude the “Covid to be much less dangerous

than lu“. But since o cially it’s assumed the e fective number of
deaths is much greater than 1,061,539, then the argument is
fallacious.
The “21,992,820 * 100 / 780,000,000 ~= 2.8%” assumes the related

reports are representative of the e fective numbers, but unknown,
ignoring unknown asymptomatic. If those assumptions were
correct, the e fective number of deaths would have to be higher
than what was reported in the same proportion of the relation
between the reported infections and e fective infections. In this
case (I assume it’s an exaggeration), of course, the fatality rate
would be exactly the same. If a disease always caused deaths and
an estimation of the number of e fective infections were much
greater than the reported infections, the fatality rate would be
much less than what was obviously expected.
(…)
0 -1 Reply
Corrections:
in Asia the number of cases and the number of deaths are very
similar.
Both lines are similar, but the scales are di ferent (the scale for
the reported deaths is approximately half of the scale for the
reported infections). That correlation between the number of
deaths and infections do not exist in Europe, where the
number of reported infections became much higher than the
number of reported deaths.
insisting the argument made by the post author is an obvious

mistake.
I meant “insisting the argument made by post author is valid is

an obvious mistake”.
My point is that there’s a dissonance between the idea that

there are o cial estimates (educated guesses) for deaths by
Covid-19 that are very di ferent from the reported and thinking
doing this:
(reported deaths) / (estimated infections) * 100 = FR
instead of this:
(estimated deaths) / (estimated infections) * 100 = FR
is a valid argument to conclude Covid-19 FR is approximately

the same or lower than the lu FR.
Either do:
(estimated deaths) / (estimated infections) * 100 = FR
or do:
(reported deaths) / (reported infections) * 100 = FR
Doing “(reported deaths) / (estimated infections) * 100 = FR”

fails to do a valid “argumentum ad absurdum” as intended.
0 -1 Reply
Reply to Tim
Tim:
It seems a reply I sent wasn’t upload or accepted yet.
I’m sending a summary.
The calculation and hypothetical examples weren’t meant to be

models of the real world, they’re meant to show that an argument
is logically invalid. That’s why I said models and values are red
herrings and the question about the missing deaths is a loaded
question.
Your last reply agrees partially with what I said showing the post
argument is logically invalid:
“This is bizzare as the basis of everyone’s argument here is that we

accept the death gure as is (although I believe it is too high and
have given evidence to support). Others believe it is too low, I have
heard recent reports that it should be at least 500k higher. If we
are generous and double that we are still only at just over 2
million. Your model predicts 10 times that.
(…)
The author has not made an absurd claim. He has made a claim
that ts a lot of the data. And who uses non conspiratorial sources
that many others do (Worldometer and the WHO). The CDC best
estimate of covid IFR is 0.73% versus an average of 0.13% for lu
for the last 10 years”
That implies that it’s accepted that the reported deaths and the
e fective or estimated deaths might not be similar. The WHO
said the deaths are underreported. Forbes says that is happening
in the USA. It doesn’t matter here if they’re correct. That point is
that means it’s fallacious to assume, for the sake of an argument,
that the number of reported deaths is the same as the e fective
estimated deaths. And WHO might assume both are very
di ferent, therefore, the argument in the post is a strawman.
I’m insisting this is wrong:
[death rates] / [estimated infections] * 100 = FR
It should be:
[estimated death rates] / [estimated infections] * 100 = FR
For instance: “If we are generous and double that we are still only
at just over 2 million“, the FR would be 0,25%.
The calculation I made was merely hypothetical (ignoring not
tested asymptomatic), emphasizing if an infection always caused
death, and the estimation of the number of infections was much
higher than what was reported, the argument in the post would
imply a ridiculous number clearly not showing that it’s not
faithfully describing the ideas that are supposed to be refuted.
I added other things in the comment that was not being written
here. For instance, concerning the excess of deaths in some
European countries. Check the image (with several charts) shown
in the WHO video and what is said (I’m not sending the link again,
otherwise the comment will be blocked).
0 -1 Reply
Tim Oct 19, 2020 11:17 PM
Hi Pedro
I suspect we are talking past each other to some extent.
I accept what your math is sound. And I understand your

argument about con rmed / con rmed or estimated /
estimated.
However my issue is that you seem to be talking from the

perspective of a computer scientist. I am talking from the
perspective of what observations mean in the physics and
math of the real world.
You say below in your yoghurt example:
I would say that’s invalid because estimations (unknown) and

con rmed cases (known) are mixed up. That’s something that
in practice, for example in relational databases, produces
ridiculous results.
This is exactly the issue. In a computer database a ridiculous

result will stop the program (a bug). As a programmer you try
and avoid this and loops and all the other things that make
programs run slow, or not at all.
In the real world we get ridiculous unpredictable outcomes far

more o ten that we think. Trump, Fukishima, Chernobyl, The
Great Depression, World War 1 and 2, The Holocaust, The Tulip
Bubble, The Challenger Explosion, The I Phone….few people, if
any, predicted these things. But they are a feature of our
universe. Not a bug.
And perspective matters. The French revolution was a surprise

to the aristocracy. Not so much for the peasants.
The universe does not stop running when there is a ridiculous

output it keeps going and we all just have to deal with the
results.
Once you have more than three parameters rules go out the
window and you get weird results, chaos if you will. This is
Chaos Theory. Chaos Theory predicts unpredictability. You may
have a good grasp of the computer model world but that will
not help you in the real world. Please just take an hour to
listen to the “stu f you should know” podcast “How chaos
theory changed the universe”. It may help you understand the
real world better.
Let’s take a real-world example. You want to throw a party for

your Father as he is retiring from a long and successful career
teaching math. You want to have the party in ve days. You
want to know what the weather will be like so you check the
weather report. The weather report says “it will be ne and
warm with a gentle North West wind”. Come party day and
what happens? It is raining, cold, and a storm front has moved
in from the South bringing gale gusts.
There is no mathematical solution to this problem. And I also

always check the weather!
Do you throw your hands in the air and say “I will never check
the weather again because they mixed con rmed data with
estimates” (which they do) or do you exclaim “had they only
used estimated data in their model, or only con rmed data in
their model they would have predicted this?”. No. You just
move your party inside.
It is hard to predict weather because there are trillions of

interactions. It is hard to predict a pandemic for exactly the
same reason. Far too much value has been placed in
mathematical models and there is very little critique of this in
the mainstream.
What I am trying to get you to understand is that none of those

numbers are con rmed and no number can ever be in the real
world. So, it does not really matter how you mix and match
them so long as you are clear about what you are doing and
why so others can o fer critique. We need open, honest good
faith debate. We do not have all the information all the time.
Even a number we insist is an accurate and measured fact, may
well have parameters to it that we did not understand. We
know a tiny fraction of all there is to know in the universe. A
really, really tiny fraction.
So, it becomes very important that one has some way of
justifying ones numbers. A common way is to nd patterns.
“We have observed this pattern before and this new
observation seems to t that pattern as well which allows us to
make some predictions”. Of course the past is not a guide to
the future….but it is the only “real” thing we have.
Kits observation is that the The Covid outbreak resembles Flu
outbreaks quite a lot. He probably has some con rmation bias
there but if you are trying to prove an important point that is
inevitable. We can argue about the validity of the numbers
until the end of time and they will constantly change based on
those arguments. There is no “con rmed” number and there
never will be. This is too complex.
He has presented his observations and his calculations in an
open and honest manner, as far as I can see. And based on
many other things I have observed about this pandemic I
think there is nothing particularly wrong with what he has
done. In fact I agree with him absolutely and have provided a
lot of evidence in other posts.
The simple fact is that the observation that “the covid
pandemic very much resembles a bad lu outbreak, and on
average may not even be a bad one” ts the observed data
much better than “covid is a 1 in 100 year super virus”.
You may think di ferently but you cannot say it is absurd
because of the data he has used or because of the math he has
used. You can only say what you think is wrong with his
assumptions regarding the data (ie higher than reported
mortality) and tweak his gures to give what you believe is a
more reasonable number.
Anything else displays a misunderstanding of math in the real
world (the predominance of non-gaussian distributions, black
swan events etc) and a misconception that there are any
“known” numbers outside of textbook examples.
1 0 Reply
Pedro Amaral Couto Oct 20, 2020 12:25 AM
Reply to Tim
Tim,
I’m not and I will not discuss about observations, because my

only concern is the logic validity of the argument in the post.
Remember that, supposedly, we’re discussing what’s my
position here.
Do you agree the argument in the post is fallacious?

0 -1 Reply
Tim Oct 20, 2020 1:50 AM
No I do not.
If we were talking about a text book example, then yes

although I would have to qualify only in the context of the
textbook example.
If we were making an argument for the sake of not creating

problems in a computer program than yes with the same
quali cation as above.
But not in real world numbers.
Real example: You and the author above (Kit) are standing
next to a eld:
You and Kit might agree there are three sheep in that eld if
you were both there and observing the three sheep at the
same time, and the eld was clearly bordered by a fence that
you could both also see. Setting aside what is a eld (what is a
covid infection?) and what is a sheep (what is a covid death?),
you and he may be able to agree on that. And your logic could
stand. So perhaps in the real world Kit’s argument could be
false, if he was dealing with a small number and a xed set of
observers, all in agreement and within a xed observable
space. But then I doubt you and he would be disagreeing. I
doubt he would be trying to tell you there were in fact eight
sheep in the eld.
But the infection numbers are very large complex numbers

with multiple interactions. A million is a very large number.
Just because we deal with millions all the time does not
change that fact. In the real world it is very di cult to count a
million things even if we all agree on what we are counting.
There is never a “con rmed” number. The con rmed number is
a construct in itself…or an estimation if you will.
In the real world it is not fallacious to do what the author did

and his argument can stand. In the real world there are no
con rmed numbers just the numbers that people present. You
can argue about their logic for reaching those numbers. You
can argue about how those numbers were collected. You can
argue that the numbers should be di ferent. You can argue
about how they were processed and presented. But you
cannot say one number is con rmed and the other is not. How
could you, just while you were counting the numbers they may
have changed.
Of course you CAN say that in the xed world of computers.
The only way you can “con rm” a real world number is by all
agreeing that the number is con rmed, which again is an
arti cial state (so estimated). In this case for the sake of
argument I agreed the worldometer deaths number is
con rmed. But it is not, I think it is too high, you think it too
low. You and I do not agree it is the con rmed number. So
there is no con rmed number. But we have to settle on
something or we can never go forward. The same applies to
cases. In this case Kit has settled on 780 million cases. I agree
with this (so does the WHO) you may not. But we need two
numbers to make the calculation. The world is dynamic, and
constantly changing the “con rmed numbers” or “real
numbers” or whatever you want to call them have changed
while we have this discussion. So we are agreeing a number is
con rmed that we both know is changing. We have to for
discussion as we can’t think in the instant. But you clinging to
some “con rmed” number is leading you to a false conclusion.
CHAOS THEORY / OBSERVER EFFECT make it impossible for

there to be a REAL CONFIRMED NUMBER in the real world
All real world numbers are estimates, you could never show
that any of them were the “true” number, because you do not
understand everything that is happening in the world at any
given moment.
How could you count all the “con rmed umbrellas” in the UK?
By the time you have nished counting there would certainly
be more or less. But you don’t get to the end and say “this
number is pointless” and start counting again. You could take
a survey of every person who lives in the UK and then you
would have a number. But that number is only accurate at the
point where people lled the survey out. This is why when we
conduct a Census everyone is meant to ll out the form at the
same time. It is a snapshot of data at a speci c time point. But
it will still never be “true” because of all the errors you can
think of (someone was sleeping, someone was drunk,
someone was in hospital, someone lied etc etc).
This is similar to uncertainty principle at the quantum level.

You never know an electrons location AND it’s speed. More
accurately measuring one, means you less accurately measure
the other. Uncertainty is repeated throughout nature at the
macro and the micro level.
This is why the use of epidemiological mathematical models to

predict the outcomes of the pandemic is verging on criminal
and they have been so wrong. Without very clear explanation
to politicians and the general public of the massive limitations
of modelling it is basically fraudulent. The models are trotted
out as if they will be fact. They are garbage.
I guess we could agree that you might never mix con rmed
numbers and estimates in the real world, simply because there
are actually never any con rmed numbers. All real world
numbers are estimates. Ergo Kit’s argument is sound by my
logic (the number and the classi cation of that number, is less
important than the evidence to support it) and even by your
logic (it is false to mix estimated numbers with con rmed
numbers – all real world numbers are estimates).
1 0 Reply
Reply to Tim
Tim,
you said you think the post argument is not fallacious.
I think it is a strawman.
You said:
I have heard recent reports that it should be at least 500k

higher. If we are generous and double that we are still only at
just over 2 million.
Mike Ryan said:
When you count anything, you can’t count it perfectly. But I can
assure you that the current numbers are likely an
underestimate of the true toll of Covid.
According to CIDRAP:
US COVID-19 death toll likely higher than reported (…) This

means as many as 9,000 additional deaths in the country could
be attributed to COVID-19. (… Some of these uncounted
COVID-19 deaths may have occurred in people who died
outside of the hospital setting, a data point New York state has
been trying to correct.
According to BGR News:
The o cial coronavirus death rate is so much lower than reality

(…) There was never any doubt that the o cial tally was
underestimating the number of lives lost to the novel
coronavirus, but the degree to which the deaths have
seemingly been undercounted is staggering. From March 15th
to August 1st, there were 211,500 excess deaths in the United
States. Not all of those people died after catching the virus, but
that number is likely much closer to the true toll of this deadly
pandemic.
Do you agree that implies that some people and WHO

assume the e fective number of deaths is higher than the
number of reported deaths?
Note: I’m not asking if they’re correct. I’m asking about their
beliefs. Also, I’m not saying and I never said anything about
what should be the correct models or values. I’m evaluating an
argument validity.
0 0 Reply
Tim Oct 20, 2020 10:34 PM
I am growing weary of this discussion.
I have been very generous to your arguments and have

accepted your math is sound and your logic is good, within the
context of a mathematical example.
You have not acknowledged a single thing I have said. This is

clearly not a good faith discussion. It does not appear you are
interested in debate and in learning something from that
debate. I, on the other hand am and I have displayed that by
acknowledging where your arguments are sound and working
within the constraints of your assumptions. You seem only
interested in me saying you are right or admitting I am wrong.
I already said I believe you to be correct (repeatedly) just not in
your criticism of Kit’s math.
I have given you the SCIENCE that supports my view that there
are no “con rmed numbers” in the real world which is why we
get weird results (chaos theory at the macro, uncertainty
principle at the micro). You can throw observer e fect in their as
well. The entire universe runs (at least this is what we currently
believe) on probability mechanics so that a massive range of
numbers is possible and only a few are probable. But the
improbable happen more than expected.
THERE ARE NO CONFIRMED NUMBERS ANYWHERE.
Yet you have not acknowledged that at all. Instead you wiggle
and squirm into some new argument while I have been
consistent.
You ask:
Do you agree that implies that some people and WHO assume
the e ective number of deaths is higher than the number of
reported deaths?
Do I agree x implies that some y assume some z? Do you read

what you are saying? Now that is a loaded question as it is so
vague how could I really disafree with it? Hard to say seeing
these are a bunch of quotes and I don’t know the context for
two of them. Also not really relevant to your original accusation
about “con rmed numbers” and “estimated numbers”
But:
This is bizzare as the basis of everyone’s argument here is that

we accept the death gure as is (although I believe it is too
high and have given evidence to support). Others believe it is
too low, I have heard recent reports that it should be at least
500k higher. If we are generous and double that we are still
only at just over 2 million. Your model predicts 10 times that.
That is my quote already acknowledging that there are

di ferent views on what the true deaths are but you just
ignore that. Do you read my posts and actually, in good faith
think about what I am saying? Or are you just looking for the
part where I say “you were right, I was wrong Pedro” and when
you don’t nd that you try and de lect the argument
somewhere else? In my quote above “others” can, of course
include the WHO as well as the other media places you have
quoted.
But I will humour you a little bit more:
Mike Ryan says what I already said. There is no real number.

Great that he can assure us. But assurances aren’t really
evidence or arguments are they? I assure you covid is, in many
ways very close to lu, but that doesn’t really do it for you does
it?
As to your two news quotes. Let us set to the side the fact that
you do not provide links so I can go and read the articles myself
(which is something I actually do when I am debating
someone, I take their argument in good faith) and con rm that
you are not quoting out of context and to see if the authors of
these articles might have something to say that I need to think
carefully about or that might change my mind on something.
So, setting that aside…….
Let me be absolutely generous to your “more deaths” position

that I have, in earlier posts explained why I do not agree with.
But I have also accepted repeatedly, that others believe this,
which is ne by me. I accept there is no true number. What
matters are the soundness of the arguments behind the
numbers, where the numbers come from and what has been
done to the numbers.
Lets take your BGR example. The count at August 1 using this
source
https://en.as.com/en/2020/08/01/latest_news/1596235214_08
6133.html
is 154 145. Let us again, be generous with your argument
(something you have never been with mine you have not even
acknowledged my arguments) and say that all of the excess
death in your BGR article is due to coronavirus. That gure is
211 500. That is a suspiciously round number, so likely
modelled, so not a “con rmed number” where as 154145 that’s
de nitely a con rmed number (in your world as far as I can see
as you have not accepted a single thing I said) so according to
you I already can’t compare these two numbers. So I might
already be losing you here. However, I believe that position is
nonsense so I will “blindly” plow ahead anyway.
If we assume all the excess death is from covid than the “real”
number would appear to be about 37% higher than the
current gure.
Today Worldometer gives 1127393 deaths. Increase by 37% is
1544528. Let’s be generous to you again, and use the same case
gure of 780 000 000 although cases are also growing and of
course 7.8 billion population is also not a “con rmed” number
(population is also growing). We get a case mortality rate of
slightly under 0.2%
That compares to a 0.13% rate for the lu on average for the
last 10 years in the US
Note from that same CDC table the lu mortality rate in 2014/15
was 0.17%. As that number is estimated it could easily be
higher. We are, in any case, very close to lu seasons that have
occurred in just the last 5 years.
Above I state:
The simple fact is that the observation that “the covid

pandemic very much resembles a bad u outbreak, and on
average may not even be a bad one” ts the observed data
much better than “covid is a 1 in 100 year super virus”.
I believe I have illustrated this point again quite clearly, even

being very generous with your assumptions that I have
repeatedly stated I do not agree with.
0 0
Reply
Reply to Tim
Tim:
I conceded that not 20 million dead did not die of Covid-19,

but also said that was not my point.
I’m the one who should be frustrated and angry here, since I’m
the one who has been ridiculed, receiving aggressive
comments and, despite the comments supposedly being
about my position, it seems there isn’t any – ANY – attempt to
understand what I said but there is always attempts to change
the subject with huge comments about models, to say that I’m
a computer nerd out of out of touch with reality, and several
other things. Supposedly at the begining I couldn’t do math,
now it seems to be the only thing I can do.
Now, if you honestly want to discuss my position, rst answer

the simple “yes or no” questions I send to make sure you really
understand it.
I’m not making hard, or complex or tricky questions, yet, for

some reason, you sent a comment with 1069 words for this
question:
reported deaths?
Was your answer a “yes” or a “no”?

0 0 Reply
Tim Oct 22, 2020 12:54 AM
You are con lating things perhaps with the attacks of other
posters. I am not responsible for their views.
I have not been aggressive in my comments. I don’t believe I

have ridiculed you. I apologised when you took o fense at
something I said. I did not call you a computer nerd. Nor did I
say you were out of touch with the world. I did not say you
were bad at math or that your math was bad. Quite the
opposite in fact. You stated you were a computer engineer, I
assume because you felt it added weight to your argument. I
didn’t ask you what you did for a job, it wouldn’t have mattered
to me and it would not have changed my argument except
that I would not have tried to contextualise some of the
argument in terms of your profession. I feel you are trying to
play the victim here now and am uncertain to what end.
You accused me of strawmen arguments and red herrings. I

have accused you of nothing but not having a discussion in
good faith, which seems obvious to me if you read through the
threads. You ignore everything I say, acknowledge no validity
to any of my points although what I am saying is critical to your
original argument.
In the real world there are no “con rmed numbers”.
I genuinely believe we are not having a good faith argument.

That is all I have said that I feel could be found to be
“aggressive”.
Your rst post said:
The math in that rst source is faulty.

It’s mixing a rough estimation of infections with the number of
known deaths.
Notice the estimation is much greater than the number of
known cases, that’s why the “calculated” fatality rate is very
small.
This is incorrect in the real world. NOT THE MATH but the
assumption there are “con rmed numbers”. I have gone to
great lengths to show you why. I will not repeat it, it’s all above
for you to read. But it is a fact that you do not seem able or
willing to acknowledge.
You:
Do you agree the argument in the post is fallacious?
Me:
No I do not.
I have repeatedly replied to your questions, made genuine
attempts to follow your arguments, acknowledged where you
have valid claims, said that your math is correct, provided clear
supporting evidence, I have not accused you of making
“strawmen arguments”, “arguments ad absurdum”, or using
“red herrings”.
I’m glad you point out that I used 1069 words. We can both put
that in Word and get it to count for us. I can con rm that I
agree with that number. BECAUSE THAT IS IN THE CONTEXT
OF A SHARED DIGITAL CONSTRUCT WHICH IS FINITE AND
WITH FIXED RULES THAT EVERYONE AGREES ON.
But if I say my local library has “620 million words” and you say
“no there are 615 million words” which is the “con rmed”
number? We can make a model, average word count in a book,
times book number and get a number. But obviously that
number is not “con rmed”. We could sit down and count all the
words in every book in the library. But that would take a long
time. Things would change while we were counting. What
about the books that are out? What about lost or stolen books?
What about new books? What if there is a page missing? What
about books that are from a di ferent library? What about a
book someone has in their bag that they purchased
somewhere else? Immediately there are a number of possible
“con rmed numbers” dependent on various assumptions. So
we could say this is the con rmed number “but”….and even
that “but” assumes we thought of all the “buts”, which we most
certainly did not (like is a magazine a book and should we
count that or what if the words have faded and we can see it’s
a word but we don’t know what the word says). SO IT CANNOT
BE A CONFIRMED NUMBER EITHER. We never have all the
information.
The other option is we close the library and say nothing out
nothing in while we count the words in these books. But then
you have “observer e fect” because by closing the library it is no
longer a library it is a building that stores books, where as a
library lends books out and has them returned. So whatever
you do what ever number you nally get, it is not a “con rmed”
number. There aren’t any in the real world.
I live in a world of uncertainty. So I try and apply my own logic,

experience and the logic of other clever people. You do not
seem willing to acknowledge that we even live in the same
world as you seem to think there is certainty in the world. So
how can we have a good faith discussion?
You were wrong, right from the start. Your assumption that
there are “con rmed” numbers and “estimated” numbers that
can be separated somehow, in the real world is a FALSE
ASSUMPTION. Chaos theory shows this.
So Kit’s argument stands. Why will you not acknowledge that?

Your assumption was incorrect.
I don’t know why we are where we are now except you do not
seem to understand this.
But in the interests of good faith discussion (which is not

something you have o fered me). And aside from the fact that
this is a very, very vague question (and not as simple as you
state) because what you are asking me is “Do I agree
something implies that some people I don’t know
“believe”(whatever that means, sounds a bit religious but
whatever) a number I have already said CAN NOT be the
“e fective” number (as there isn’t one) will be too low.
You are very confusing.
reported deaths?
Yes I do. All my arguments support that. You are the one, that
has contended, from the start, that there are “con rmed
numbers” and “estimated numbers” and that we can somehow
separate them in the real world.
0 0 Reply
Sandra Oct 17, 2020 7:53 PM
Reply to Tim
Thank you! That is why there are inmulogist with an speciality on

biomodelling, is not enough to be math teacher or an engineer. A rule of
three is just too simplistic and does not apply to this.
1 0 Reply
Reply to Sandra

Sandra,
I showed several sources declaring Covid-19 deaths are much greater

than the number of related deaths. Also showed examples of
mortality excess compared to other years.
That clearly shows the post author’s and Tim’s arguments are based on
a strawman argument. Tim misquoted a video excerpt. He quoted it
as “we have passed the grim total of 1 million deaths”, omitting
“deaths reported on covert” and paraphrased it as “deaths are
slightly above 1 million“.
Can you explain why that is acceptable? And exactly why his position is
better than mine?
By the way, the post’s argument is based on a “rule of three”, which you
said it’s too simplistic. I mentioned that rule only because I was asked
if I know how to calculate percentages. What I showed is more
complex than that.
0 -1 Reply
Your sources are bogus and so are your comments.

1 0 Reply
Reply to Almondson
It seems you like to troll here.
I’m quoting Tim:
This is bizzare as the basis of everyone’s argument here is that

we accept the death gure as is (although I believe it is too
high and have given evidence to support). Others believe it is
too low, I have heard recent reports that it should be at least
500k higher. If we are generous and double that we are still
only at just over 2 million. Your model predicts 10 times that.
(…)
The author has not made an absurd claim. He has made a claim
that ts a lot of the data. And who uses non conspiratorial
sources that many others do (Worldometer and the WHO).
The CDC best estimate of covid IFR is 0.73% versus an average
of 0.13% for u for the last 10 years
That refutes the author post argument. Why?
According to what Tim said, he seems to agree estimated

number of deaths and reported numbers of deaths might be
very di ferent. Therefore, this is invalid:
[reported deaths] / [estimated infections] * 100 = FR
For instance, that would be approximately 0,25% (higher than

the lu FR) “If we are generous and double that we are still
only at just over 2 million”.
That has always been my point. It doesn’t matter if, for

instance, the sources are bogus, because the argument in the
post is an “argumentum ad absurdum”: you assume that
something that you believe to be bogus is true, then prove that
it implies a contradiction. But to be a valid argument, the
argument must follow the idea that is supposed to be refuted.
It failed because it omitted important information.
Can you explain what’s my mistake here?

If you can’t, I suggest you to stop trolling.
1 0 Reply
Tim Oct 18, 2020 3:40 AM
Reply to Sandra
Your welcome Sandra. I would add historians, psychologists,

behavioural economists and a whole bunch of other specialists who
should have been consulted about whether this was something to
react to in the way in which we have.
But most importantly historians….unfortunately we humans have a
habit of doing the same stupid things over and over again.
I think Pedro is a little upset with us!! Lets hope he can take a little
away from what I have said and we can all have better discussions.
Have a great day!
3 0 Reply
Reply to Tim

The estimated number of infections is approximately 20 times the number of known
cases.
Keep the jokes coming…

0 -1 Reply
Reply to PeeJay
(…)
One more thing I forgot to tell:
If you still don’t understand the problem of the calculation in that post, suppose the
fatality rate is 100% and the number of cases is 38,947,653. The number of known deaths
is also 38,947,653.
Then, making the calculation suggested in the post, you’d do this:
38,947,653 * 100 / 780,000,000 ~= 5%
Amazing. You have a disease that always causes deaths, but the fatality rate becomes 5%
when you calculate the relation between the number *of known* deaths and the number
of *estimated* infections.
That’s exactly what the author of the post did:
“The global population is roughly 7.8 billion people, if 10% have been infected that is 780
million cases. The global death toll currently attributed to Sars-Cov-2 infections is
1,061,539.
That’s an infection fatality rate of roughly or 0.14%. Right in line with seasonal lu and the
predictions of many experts from all around the world.”
1,061,539 * 100 / 780,000,000 ~= 0.14%
But if you use my method:
(38,947,653 * 780,000,000 / 38,947,653) * 100 / 780,000,000 = 100%
Or:
(38,947,653 * (1 / (38,947,653 / 780000000))) * 100 / 780,000,000 = 100%
That’s the one you said I was “multiplying the deaths by the the di ference between
estimated infected and actual con rmed infected”. But look and wonder: the result is
correct as expected.
As I said, my father is a Math teacher and I’m a So tware Engineer.

2 -4 Reply
Keith Oct 16, 2020 4:15 AM
We understand your calculations I’m sure. However if the fatality rate was 100% then
there would be no need for estimation. All deaths will be known. Thus there will only
ever be 780M * 100 / 780M = 100%. Your maths is right, but your logic is completely
wrong.
10 0 Reply
PeeJay Oct 16, 2020 11:14 AM
Hi Pedro, I think others have said it better than myself. My point is not validity but the
numbers you come up with, no one denies the con rmed case numbers (debatable)
or deaths (debatable), the number you come up with is an extrapolation of deaths
based on 3 known values, the point of the article is that if the IFR was so high in reality
then we WOULD have the number of deaths you calculated but it turns out that we
DON’T which indicates it is not as deadly as widely reported.
6 0 Reply
Reply to PeeJay
I thought the problem was my inability to make calculations:

“Are you sure you know how percentages and math work ?”
Now it seems the problem is an estimation of the death rates.
Keith said: “if the fatality rate was 100% then there would be no need for
estimation”
If the calculation in the post is correct, then, assuming the fatality rate was 100%,
then the result should be 100%. But that’s not the case.
PeeJay said: “the point of the article is that if the IFR was so high in reality then we
WOULD have the number of deaths you calculated”
There’s a di ference between con rmed numbers and an estimation.

The rough estimation assumes there are unknown cases and, consequently,
unknown deaths from Covid-19. For instance, there might be countries that lack
resources for tests, and causes of death are unknown. I assume the estimation is
an extrapolation from countries where the tests are done and death causes are
known.
It’s fallacious and probably disingenuous to use an estimation that is 20 times the
con rmed cases and the con rmed death cases to calculate a fatality rate. Of
course, it’s going to be a very small number, and of course, if it was a disease that
always causes death to the infected, the result would not be 100% either.
2 -5 Reply
I don’t want to be spammy, but it seems to me people here have issues with
estimations and probabilities. Instead of infections and deaths, I’m using the
classic example of the yogurts factory (at least yogurts were used by some of
my Math teachers).
Suppose we have a yogurt factory.

10,000 yogurts were made.
They’re either strawberry lavor or banana lavor.
We tested a random sample of 100 yogurts:

60 banana lavor and 40 strawberry lavor.
We concluded all banana lavor seems to have no problems but noticed 10

strawberry lavor yogurts have a law, a pathogenic germ. 25% of the
strawberry lavor yogurts are lawed.
We don’t know exactly how many of the strawberry lavor yogurts were
produced, but we estimate there should be 10,000 * (40 / 100) = 4,000. And
probably 10,000 * (60 / 100) = 6,000 are banana lavored. Notice that 6,000 +
4,000 = 10,000.
What’s the percentage of lawed yogurts among those 4,000 yogurts.

I would say, probably it’s 25%.
But someone tells it must be much less, because:

10 / 4,000 * 100 = 0.25%
I would say that’s invalid because estimations (unknown) and con rmed cases
(known) are mixed up. That’s something that in practice, for example in
relational databases, produces ridiculous results. We should also estimate the
number of lawed yogurts. Assuming the sample is representative, it should
be something like this:
(10 * 4000 / 40) / 4000 * 100 = 25%
If all strawberry lavor yogurts in that sample were lawed, using the other’s
logic:
40 / 4,000 * 100 = 1%
But with my logic:

(40 * 4000 / 40) / 4000 * 100 = 100%
As expected.
Someone might say that logic is wrong because if the lawed yogurts were
100%, then the estimation wasn’t required. And the argument using that end
case to make a problem easier to understand would be dismissed.
Someone else might say it was said the number of the entire lawed yogurts is
10, thus the calculation “(10 * 4000 / 40) / 4000 * 100” is the correct one. But
nobody else said the entire lawed yogurts is 10. It wouldn’t make sense if the
entire number of strawberry lavor yogurts is unknown and was, therefore,
estimated.
Someone else might say that my logic is wrong because I’m extrapolating the
total lawed yogurts from 3 known values: the number of tested strawberry
lavor yogurts, the number of known lawed yogurts, and the estimated
number of strawberry lavor yogurts. Supposedly the point of the person who
got the 0.25% is that the number of lawed yogurts I mentioned would so
high, but it’s not the case.
You also dislike this reply

I don’t want to be spammy, but it seems to me people here have issues with
estimations and probabilities. Instead of infections and deaths, I’m using the
classic example of the yogurts factory (at least yogurts were used by some of
my Math teachers).
Suppose we have a yogurt factory.

10,000 yogurts were made.
They’re either strawberry lavor or banana lavor.
We tested a random sample of 100 yogurts:

60 banana lavor and 40 strawberry lavor.
We concluded all banana lavor seems to have no problems but noticed 10

strawberry lavor yogurts have a law, a pathogenic germ. 25% of the
strawberry lavor yogurts are lawed.
We don’t know exactly how many of the strawberry lavor yogurts were
produced, but we estimate there should be 10,000 * (40 / 100) = 4,000. And
probably 10,000 * (60 / 100) = 6,000 are banana lavored. Notice that 6,000 +
4,000 = 10,000.
What’s the percentage of lawed yogurts among those 4,000 yogurts. I would
say, probably it’s 25%. It’s an estimate, an educated guess.
But someone tells it must be much less, because:

10 / 4,000 * 100 = 0.25%
I would say that’s invalid because estimations (unknown) and con rmed
cases (known) are mixed. That’s something that in practice, for example in
relational databases, produces ridiculous results. We should also estimate the
number of lawed yogurts. Assuming the sample is representative, it should
be something like this:
(10 * 4000 / 40) / 4000 * 100 = 25%
If all strawberry lavor yogurts in that sample were lawed, using the other’s
logic:
40 / 4,000 * 100 = 1%
But with my logic:

(40 * 4000 / 40) / 4000 * 100 = 100%
As expected.
Someone might say that logic is wrong because if the lawed yogurts were
100%, then the estimation wasn’t required. And the argument using that end
case to make a problem easier to understand would be dismissed.
Someone else might say it was said the number of the entire lawed yogurts is
10, thus the calculation “(10 * 4000 / 40) / 4000 * 100” is the correct one. But
nobody else said the entire lawed yogurts is 10. It wouldn’t make sense if
the entire number of strawberry lavor yogurts is unknown and was, therefore,
estimated.
Someone else might say that my logic is wrong because I’m extrapolating the
total lawed yogurts from 3 known values: the number of tested strawberry
lavor yogurts, the number of known lawed yogurts, and the estimated
number of strawberry lavor yogurts. Supposedly the point of the person who
got the 0.25% is that the number of lawed yogurts I mentioned would so
high, but it’s not the case.
You may also dislike this reply

2 -4 Reply
You can play with numbers til the cows come home, you won’t nd many
receivers for your noise here. This propaganda is desperate and pathetic.
1 0 Reply
Reply to Almondson

If you want to send a comment, have more respect and try to explain
exactly what are my mistakes. For instance, Tim, unlike you sent replies
like that.
I’m not playing with numbers. As I said, the post author used this
calculation as an argument:
[reported number of deaths] / [estimated number of infections] < lu

FR
But that is fallacious for at least two reasons:

1) the reported numbers and estimated numbers might not be the
same
2) it’s a strawman – o cially, the reported number of deaths and the
e fective number of deaths are not the same or even similar
The calculation should be like this:
[estimated number of deaths] / [estimated number of infections] = FR

0 -1 Reply
Inquisitive Oct 16, 2020 5:57 AM
The “known” deaths for covid are highly exaggerated as the covid case fatality de nition that
was used would create a pandemic every year for whatever coronavirus (aka cold) was going
around that year. There are hundreds of thousands of people who die with coronaviruses
every year, but their deaths have never been attributed to the other coronaviruses like they
have with covid. As with covid, the people who die with these common coronaviruses are
mostly dying from their more serious comorbidities. It’s just that because their immune
systems are severely compromised, they are prone to all kinds of infections like a coronavirus.
So while your math exercise proves you can do basic math, it doesn’t show much in the way of
the reality of what has happened.
9 -1 Reply
Reply to Inquisitive
Inquisitive:
“The “known” deaths for covid are highly exaggerated (…)”
That’s irrelevant here. The post author made an “argumentum ad absurdum”, which
implies assuming some position is true and then demonstrate it implies a contradiction.
The argument is this:

(reported deaths by Covid-19) / (estimated infections by Covid-19) * 100 < ( lu FR)
But it’s invalid. It’s assuming the reported deaths by Covid-19 and the (supposed)
e fective deaths by Covid-19 should be the same, but that’s not necessarily true. And that
assumption is a strawman. The o cial position is that they’re not the same.
It should be:
(estimated deaths by Covid-19) / (estimated infections by Covid-19) * 100 = FR
One very important thing. It doesn’t matter here “the reality of what has happened”,
which might shock most people here and it might be counter-intuitive. What matters is if
the criticized or analyzed position (in this case, the WHO) is being described faithfully (or,
otherwise, misrepresented) and if the argument against that position is valid and sound. I
believe lots of people here are not focusing on those.
0 -3 Reply
Inquisitive Oct 21, 2020 8:43 PM
Are you deliberately being obtuse? What constitutes a covid death is one of the
variables in the calculation, so it’s very far from “irrelevant.” I don’t question your basic
math skills, but I have serious doubts in regards to your critical thinking. Or maybe
you’re just intentionally spreading misinformation.
1 0 Reply
Inquisite,
it seems I’m not the one who he’s being obtuse here…
You said:
What constitutes a covid death is one of the variables in the calculation (…)
It’s true the number of deaths by Covid-19 (not “a covid death”…) is a variable

required to calculate the e fective mortality rate (that’s not the CFR), but it’s not
used in post-argument. That’s what have been saying, I insisted on explaining it
and nobody questioned that yet. Until you understand that, you’re being obtuse
and the person who lacks critical thinking. You’re merely copying a criticism made
by others, like a parrot.
You might be thinking I’m the idiot one here who can’t clearly see that the
number of deaths by Covid-19 was used in the post. It clearly says:
The global population is roughly 7.8 billion people, if 10% have been infected that
is 780 million cases. The global death toll currently attributed to Sars-Cov-
2 infections is 1,061,539. That’s an infection fatality rate of roughly or 0.14%.
The value “1,061,539” was taken from Worldometers. Those were the reported
deaths:
Total Deaths = cumulative number of deaths among detected cases.
You might think I’m the stupid one here who doesn’t know the di ference
between the number of reported deaths and the number of e fective deaths
(which also require an estimation). Probably many people here believe the
number of deaths is lower than what was reported. It seems WHO and CDC
believe the number of deaths is much higher than what was reported.
When you count anything, you can’t count it perfectly. But I can assure you that
the current numbers are likely an underestimate of the true toll of Covid.
( Mike Ryan )
The o cial coronavirus death rate is so much lower than reality (…) There was never
any doubt that the o cial tally was underestimating the number of lives lost to the
novel coronavirus, but the degree to which the deaths have seemingly been
undercounted is staggering
(BGR News)
Since you might have issues understanding what I say, I might need to clarify: I’m
not saying WHO and CDC are correct. It’s not relevant. I’m saying they don’t
believe the reported numbers are not the same as the e fective numbers. Maybe
the post author also doesn’t believe 10% of the population is infected by Covid-
19 (which are not only the reported cases), but that was used for the sake of
argument, but omitted what is said about is said about the numbers of deaths
by Covid-19.
Did you understand what I wrote? Do you have any disability I need to know to
help you understand it? Next time show more respect. I’m not your mother.
0 0 Reply

Dude, I hope someone is paying you to write this much drivel. You’re like the
covid liars we see and hear on television or our other digital devices. You spew
so much bullshit, no one knows wtf you’re saying anymore. You’ve established
you can do basic math. That’s it. Oh, and that you’re obtuse af!
0 0 Reply
Kit Knightly Oct 18, 2020 3:43 PM
I don’t usually comment in person on here, but I’m sorry this math is making a rather large
mistake…
We have two “knowns” – deaths and con rmed cases. (These gures are likely highly in lated
due to unreliable testing methods, but we’ll take them as gospel for the purposes of this
discussion). These are our known values.
Our “unknown value” is uncon rmed cases. Here we work with the WHO’s estimate, roughly
20x the known cases. This is because it is known that Sars-Cov-2 is symptomless (or very mild)
in up 95% of cases. So clearly there would be millions of cases nobody ever reports.
This is where you’re making a mistake – you’re calculating the percentage of severe (known) cases
that die…and then assuming the same proportion of asymptomatic cases would also die. This is
completely illogical.
Obviously the fatality rate of symptomless cases is going to be zero (or close as makes no
practical di ference).
That’s why an accurate number of symptomless/mild cases is important, because it’s the only
way to get good estimate for the IFR.
2 0 Reply
Reply to Kit Knightly
Kit Knightly, you said:
“We have two “knowns” – deaths and con rmed cases.”
That’s false. The number reported or con rmed deaths (which are known) are not
necessarily the same as the number of e fective deaths (which are unknown). The o cial
position (from, for instance, WHO and CDC) is that they’re not the same. That’s my
point and why the argument in the post is invalid, even if its author doesn’t agree with the
o cial position.
“This is because it is known that Sars-Cov-2 is symptomless (or very mild) in up 95% of cases. So
clearly there would be millions of cases nobody ever reports.”
I mentioned that:
«The “21,992,820 * 100 / 780,000,000 ~= 2.8%” assumes the related reports are
representative of the e fective numbers, but unknown, ignoring unknown
asymptomatic. If those assumptions were correct, the e fective number of deaths would
have to be higher than what was reported in the same proportion of the relation between
the reported infections and e fective infections.»
And (which was not accepted yet by O f-Guardian):

«As pointed previously, my point was to show the argument in the post is fallacious. It’s
not to conclude that 21,992,820 died of Covid-19 died. If, for instance, the estimation
assumes many asymptomatic were ignored, the relation between reported deaths and
infections is not the same as the relation between e fected deaths and infections (which
explains a discrepancy, and answering your question)»
I also said:
«You have to calculate the number of deaths estimations according to the provided rough
estimation of the total infections. The estimated number of infections is approximately 20
times the number of known cases. I’m assuming the estimated number of deaths should
be 20 times the number of known deaths.»
To clarify, my point here was not to say that there are 20 times the number of known
deaths. My point was to say that the argument in the post is invalid because it’s assuming
e fective death rates and reported death rates are the same, or, that’s the o cial position
(which is not). Death rate estimations provide di ferent fatality rates. Even if everybody
died from an disease from an infection, the numbers of e fective infections and deaths
would still be unknown, but following the argument on the post would imply a small
fattaly rate (ex: 5% instead of the expected 100%).
1 -1 Reply
ankit Oct 15, 2020 3:45 AM
What they are saying is “hey believe roughly 10% of the world has been infected with Sars-Cov-2” .
These are not recorded cases; this is an assumption. As per
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ recorded corona virus cases are 38,734,804 and
recorded deaths are 1,096,828. So IFR is close to 2.83 if i am correct. So no i disagree with what you
are saying.
2 -3 Reply
Alessandro Oct 15, 2020 11:29 AM
Reply to ankit

The number you cite is the “CONFIRMED CASES” following the WHO standard de nition,
implying a medical diagnoses, either or not based on a laboratory test.
Studies of isolate cluster of infection e.g. Princess Diomond cruise ship and Franch navy C. De
Gaulle suggest the following distribution: 20-30% (depending on age and exposition) of
exposed people show an immunological reaction, half of the are asymptomatic and with low
risk of contagiousness, 10% develop symptoms. Less than 1 per 1000 of exposed population
(1% of “positive” cases need serious medical attention. All this depend on age, gender,
genomic detail (ehtnicity) and of course the doses of exposure. Asian alpha mail, with High
testosterone level have a risk possibly 3-4 time greater that female from Tuscany.
1 0 Reply
ankit Oct 15, 2020 1:29 PM
Reply to Alessandro
Thanks for reply.
Something which is experienced in a closed space such as a ship where there is authorised
command such as of captain . Results can not be compared with real life scenario wherein
people go out for work, groceries & so on.
I have seen with own eyes scores of daily wage less educated workers sitting on road in
middle of lockdown in India, they dont follow any rules or quarantine. Its they who form
majority here & its true for all se-asia afaik.
Quarantine can be done on a ship because no one has to earn; but in third world
countries thats not possible. Data achieved on ship isnt representative from a real world
where there are no doctors for miles.
Also many countries including china and others are not sharing true data; partly because
they dont have it themselves; as there are no medical health facilities for everyone.
Please see below link

https://thewire.in/government/delhis-covid-19-deaths-data
It says people cremated or buried in covid speci ed burial grounds or cremation grounds
is over twice the data on number of people dead. Numbers o ten dont speak truth.
Many people i know got covid; they never went to any doctor or test center; just sat inside
house for 15 days; on of them was my uncle and he had to be rushed to emergency and he
had a close one.
Thanks!
2 -1 Reply
Mister Bump Oct 19, 2020 1:03 AM
Reply to ankit
This is what both Kit and Pedro don’t get. The problem isnt the maths. Its the
assumption they have any clue about how many people have died of (or with) covid.
O cial recordings of deaths are meaningless. Kit assumes all deaths from covid are
known to a good approximation (they arent) and Pedro assumes we can estimate the
amount of deaths unrecorded to a good approximation (we can’t). Maths can’t solve
this equation. The greatest unknown (and will forever be) is how many people died of
covid without being tested. The dead an buried will forever remain untested. Its the
wholly unknown unknown!
0 0 Reply
Kim Oct 15, 2020 3:57 PM
Reply to ankit
The 2.83 you are referencing is the CFR (case fatality rate). IFR (infection fatality rate) is
di ferent and takes into account a larger group of people, those who are asymptomatic or
undiagnosed.
5 0 Reply
Lech Biegalski Oct 13, 2020 6:17 PM
I was able to download the entire Session 1 video from the WHO website and uploaded it here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVhqJ35QutU
19 0 Reply
Didier Lagasse de Locht Oct 14, 2020 1:26 PM
Reply to Lech Biegalski
Pouvez-vous nous communiquer le Time Code précis de la citation ? Merci.

0 0 Reply
Lukasz Oct 14, 2020 2:28 PM
Reply to Didier Lagasse de Locht
https://www.who.int/news-room/events/detail/2020/10/05/default-
calendar/executive-board-special-session-on-the-covid19-response
Sesion 1 – time 1:01:33

2 0 Reply
Caroline Champion Oct 14, 2020 3:59 PM
“Session 1” and skip to 1:01:33 to hear the exact quote:

1 0 Reply
Lech Biegalski Oct 15, 2020 10:38 AM
1:01:33
0 0 Reply
Faith Oct 19, 2020 7:04 AM
Oui, ici https://www.who.int/news-room/events/detail/2020/10/05/default-

calendar/executive-board-special-session-on-the-covid19-response puis – cliquez sur
“Session 1” et sauter a 1:01:33 pour entendre le devis exact
0 0 Reply
Reply to Lech Biegalski
Does it mention the deaths by Covid-19 estimation?

Thanks in advance.
0 -1 Reply
Chris Oct 13, 2020 4:23 PM
Because most of you really seem to like math lets make a quick and simpli ed Extrapolation.
Lets pretend to immediately stop all draconian policies, lockdowns, wearing masks, etc because
the IFR is as low as 0.14%.
Europe has 741,4 mill inhabitants.

Right know around 3 mill infected people.
Lets say, within 2 weeks an infected person is going to infect 4 di ferent people (one colleague, one
stranger, one familymember, one friend). A ter these 2 weeks this person is fully recovered or
dead.
A ter 2 weeks: 12 mill.

Now a ter 6 weeks, 270‘000 people of 192 mill infected people are going to die (IFR: 0,14%).
If you need arti cial respiration due to Covid you have a surival rate of more or less 47%.
This means, you will need at least 540‘000 intensive care beds.
In 2012 Europe had 11,5 intensive care beds per 100‘000 inhabitants. In total around 86‘000
intensive care beds.
And out of a sudden almost 500‘000 are going to die: 454‘000 because they don‘t recieve the
treatment they need and 43‘000 of the „lucky“ 86‘000 patients due to the survival rate.
Strange, I don‘t recall articles of the lu having caused a total breakdown…

15 -31 Reply
Don R Oct 13, 2020 4:58 PM
Reply to Chris
No. We can see in places like NY and Sweden that the spread of the virus slows dramatically
a ter it’s infected 20% of a population. Also, it spreads most prominently among people who
are young and healthy, since vulnerable people know by now to stay home and avoid large
gatherings.
21 0 Reply
Chris Oct 13, 2020 6:20 PM
Reply to Don R
As I wrote, it is simpli ed and without any kind of protection. And 20% are still 148 mill.
1 -5 Reply
Chris Cornell Oct 13, 2020 5:31 PM
Reply to Chris
Incredibly dull, morons like you should listen more and talk a whole lot less
12 -8 Reply
Chris Oct 13, 2020 6:20 PM
Reply to Chris Cornell
That is a really strong argument, respect!

10 -2 Reply
Sean Oct 13, 2020 7:23 PM
Reply to Chris
Like they say in Russia… tough tshitsky

2 0 Reply
LuckyLui Oct 14, 2020 12:54 AM
Reply to Chris
Let’s say the vast majority who are labeled to have covid are not even sick and the vast
majority of those who are sick gets the sni les (or other indistinguishable symptoms from the
common cold) for a couple of days and present it as if there is an equal chance that “A ter
these 2 weeks this person is fully recovered or dead”.
Or, lets be more realistic and say covid is a contrived illness based on a modelled virtual virus
“realeased” into the physical world by way of non-stop “ lood the zone” fear / PR campaign to
convince the unsuspecting that people are getting sick and dying from this new spectacular
and politically savy illness. All one massive distraction / psyop to usher in the very
undemocratic and not at all Great Reset aka a totalitarian technocratic one world gov.
20 0 Reply
EzE Oct 14, 2020 5:11 PM
Reply to Chris
You seem to be a math expert but you’re making it seem like everyone that gets infected dies
like the media makes it seem not accounting for those of us that didn’t even feel it. My whole
family was exposed/infected. Out of 10 of us (2 houses) only 3 fell very ill but no one died. My
mother-in-law is 77 years old with acute asthma, diabetes, Arthritis and she didn’t get a single
symptom because she takes Hydroxychloroquine for her Rheumathoid Arthritis. My father-in-
law and my sister-in-law did get very sick with fever, cough and runs o f and on for a few
weeks but came through ok. They healed with vitamins, teas and Hydroxychloroquine.
8 0 Reply
Chris Oct 15, 2020 12:35 PM
Reply to EzE
Sorry, but that’s completely wrong. Of course not everyone dies in this model, only 0.14%.
This means that 14 people out of 10000 infected people are going to die. I‘m really happy
that no one of your family died, I really am.
1 0 Reply
Jan J Oct 14, 2020 10:17 PM
Reply to Chris
You fail to account for the fact that we’ve already lived through the “worst case” scenario – if
you believe the hype, this is a NOVEL virus with zero pre-existing immunity which has spread
beyond control to infect 10% of the world population. What was the outcome so far? 1.1
million dead out of 780 million infected. IFR = 0.14%.
We don’t need to make a bunch of assumptions about rate of transmission, we don’t need to
model it under hypothetical scenarios with arbitrary assumptions like your R=4, because, you
know, it already happened and the results are in and the verdict is: It’s just not that deadly.
We need to relate to the observable facts not theoretical models which have been so wildly o f
the mark so far it’s not even funny. Reality > model.
7 -1 Reply
Chris Oct 15, 2020 12:43 PM
Reply to Jan J
No we simply don‘t know if we had the worst case scenario, why are the cases in Europe
increasing so quickly? It‘s not even sure if you will stay immune a ter an infection.
Most of the countries do have higher amounts of new infected people than in spring. And
this with regulations, wearing masks in public, and so on.
1 -2 Reply
Jan J Oct 15, 2020 1:56 PM
Reply to Chris

I’ll reiterate my point: Novel virus. No immunity. Not prepared. Lack of PPE.
Exceptionally incompetent government handling. Wrong treatment for many cases
(ventilator was wrong for many patients).10% of population infected in less than 6
months. That is the de nition of a worst case scenario, it will not get worse than this.
Extrapolating, the max toll of COVID19 will be around 10 million deaths, assuming
everyone on the planet gets infected, which they will not.
1 0 Reply
Mister Bump Oct 19, 2020 2:29 PM
Reply to Jan J
Yeah, I mean whats 10 million deaths to worry about?

0 0 Reply
PeeJay Oct 15, 2020 10:22 PM
Reply to Chris
The increasing cases everywhere are simply the result of PCR tests which are NOT
speci c to covid, in addition in every country doctors and hospitals are nancially
incentivised to report covid cases to get extra nancial funding. Read up on PCR tests,
those are not speci c to covid and simply testing people during well known lu and
cold season is reporting way more than in reality. Also, when you look up statistics in
ALL countries then somehow you will notice that deaths somehow are not following
the number of infected even despite being heavily misrepresented.
1 -1 Reply
Tim Oct 16, 2020 2:32 AM
Reply to Chris
But deaths are not occuring at the same rate as last season.
And we should be talking about seasons if we are comparing apples with apples.
Flu seasons are around 6 months long roughly over winter and some part of spring
and or autumn. It never goes away….it just goes to low levels
The Covid had a pretty bad rst season but the second one is already looking more
mild at least in terms of mortality.
Not surprising because it has already killed of a lot of the weak. Just like what is
observed with the lu, a few mild seasons are o ten followed by a vicious season.
You don’t stay immune to colds or lu either we get them every winter. This is hardly a
cause for concern.
However even with The Covid rst time around there appears to be t cell cross
reactivity. That is, our immune systems recognise, to some extent, The Covid. This
explains why the outbreaks just zzled out at around the 20% rate in London,
Sweden and California.
It is also hardly surprising as The Covid is in the coronavirus family, like many variants
of the common cold, and our immune system has spent millions of years battling
viruses of all sorts. The immune system is extremely sophisticated and generates
billions of potential antibody combinations.
This is all rather unsurprising so the hysterical global over reaction is perplexing to say
the least.
1 0 Reply
civilization-hoax.com Oct 14, 2020 11:46 PM
Reply to Chris
In other words, you didn’t read the article, you didn’t listen to the video, and you don’t know
the di ference between cases and infections. Good job. You’ve been well-programmed.
7 -1 Reply
Chris Oct 15, 2020 1:00 PM
Reply to civilization-hoax.com
Good job, your answer makes completely no sense at all. Why do I have to know the
di ference between cases and infections? The model is about infected people infecting
other people and dying according to IFR and bad circumstances. Did you really read my
comment?
1 -3 Reply
civilization-hoax.com Oct 15, 2020 7:43 PM
Reply to Chris
Yep I did read your comment. Infection fatality rate vs case fatality rate. It is really
important, because most infected people are asymptomatic, thus they are excluded
from the case rate denominator in case fatality rate. This makes the virus look up to
40x more deadly than it really is. Even the CDC stats show ridiculously low chance of
dying from a sars-cov-2 infection (.05% chance for the oldest patients).
As ex-CIA director William Casey said, the job of the CIA will be complete once every
American believes the opposite of the facts. We are almost there. Australia has us
beat right now… Check my website for more info.
2 -1 Reply
Eric Cobb Oct 13, 2020 3:52 PM
The problem in the USA is that it has been so politicized to try to re lect badly on the current
administration. We have had rst hand accounts of people’s relatives dying from dementia, heart
disease, falls, even gunshot wounds and those deaths being counted as covid-19 deaths. I suspect
that our death count may be arti cially in lated by as much as 50%, perhaps more. That means
that we may only have 100k or less deaths that are actually attributable to Covid-19. Furthermore,
almost 60% of the deaths in the USA were in and around nursing homes and LTCF’s, almost all of
those deaths were people who had multiple co-morbidities. If this is the case, it dramatically
changes the way we should view this virus, and the e forts undertaken to keep the country shut
down.
25 0 Reply
Darrell Prince Oct 14, 2020 9:14 PM
Reply to Eric Cobb
do “we”? Politicized,the US is the literal worst, measured. He said masks don’t slow disease
transmission and admitted to SLOWING DOWN TESTING. HE SAID IT WOULD BE GONE BY
MAY
0 0 Reply
PeeJay Oct 15, 2020 10:25 PM
Reply to Eric Cobb
Hi Eric Cobb, i’m not sure if you are aware but at the time of supposed 160k deaths only 6%
were reported to have died with no other illnesses in USA and those were o cial CDC gures.
0 0 Reply
Reply to Eric Cobb
COVID19 is so hardcore that it not only survives 28 days on a mobile phone, it survives being
red on a bullet, and then proceeds to infect the person getting shot. 100% fact-checked!
0 0 Reply
Ralf Oct 13, 2020 2:21 PM
great job! Thank you!

0 -1 Reply
Dylan Jones Oct 13, 2020 1:44 PM
ONS reports 48,168 deaths due to COVID-19 and just 394 deaths to in luenza. Is this the same
in luenza that normally kills on average 17,000 every year in the UK? Is Covid the cure for
in luenza? Is it the cure for everything?
ONS reports 13,619 deaths due to pneumonia. Reports them separately to in luenza. On average
30,000 people die from pneumonia every year in the UK. Is Covid the cure for pneumonia too? It
would seem so.
“If before death the patient had symptoms typical of COVID19 infection, but the test result has not been
received, it would be satisfactory to give ‘COVID-19’ as the cause of death, tick Box B and then share the
test result when it becomes available. In the circumstances of there being no swab, it is satisfactory to
apply clinical judgement.”
https://web.archive.org/web/20200923101927/https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governm
ent/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/ le/877302/guidance-for-doctors-completing-
medical-certi cates-of-cause-of-death-covid-19.pdf
Symptoms typical of Covid19 are the same symptoms typical of in luenza and pneumonia.
Clinical judgment my arse.
The increase in presumptive diagnosis based on a hyper-projection of non-speci c symptoms,

coupled with hyper-sensitive and biased PCR testing, has magni ed the o cial death statistics by
around 3 times.
Number of genuine Covid deaths in the UK probably closer to 13,759.
Number of genuine Covid deaths in the world is probably closer to 350,000.
And that’s not taking into account that so many deaths “from Covid” may not have occurred were
it not for such measures as elective intubation on ventilators when just oxygen masks were
required, seeding covid patients into care homes, cutting o f of medical aid, banning visits,
enforced loneliness and signature of DNR forms.
One door away from T4, the Nazi Euthanasia program.

26 -1 Reply
Vlad Oct 13, 2020 3:12 PM
Reply to Dylan Jones
Yes, the only problem is the number of deaths in your country at the peak of the outbreak,
March and April, from all causes, was 46% higher than normal, according to the same ONS
you are quoting.
This was no lu. Flu doesn’t ll your ICU, until you run out of beds, like it’s currently happening
in my country.
Scienti c studies regarding IFR show it is somewhere between 0.53% and 0.82%. Making it a
few times more deadly than the lu. Which doesn’t sound so scary, until you realize that this is
much more infectious than the lu, so even if the IFR is the same, you will still have more
deaths.
And when you look at the number of deaths compared to the average lu season, the UK
already has 3 times more deaths, and you had COVID-19 going on for just 7 months. And
other countries are much worse, the US has 5 times more deaths Brasil 9 times more, and
Mexico 14 (fourteen) times more, compared tot the average lu season.
So, again, how is this “just the lu”? It is clearly not.

5 -11 Reply
Reply to Vlad
Did you read my post at all?
Number of genuine Covid deaths in the UK probably closer to 13,759.

First of all, in luenza most certainly does ll ICUs every year, year in year out. Just not in
March.
According to the latest immunological studies, the overall lethality of Covid-19 (IFR) in the

general population ranges between 0.1% and 0.5% in most countries, which is
comparable to the medium in luenza pandemics of 1957 and 1968.
In the same range as lu. 650,000 people die on average from the lu every year.
The death certi cates for Covid have been ddled. If you coughed before you died you
were labelled covid. If you coughed a ter you died you were labelled covid.
As to the excess deaths , across the UK and the world:
Hospital wards were emptied in anticipation of a deluge of Covid-19 patients which

never arrived
A&E was operating at 30%
All “non-essential” surgery was cancelled
Care for cancer and heart patients was drastically curtailed
GP cover was reduced to video conferencing
Fear mongering by the mainstream media dissuaded many from seeking medical
care in the rst place
However, the most severe dereliction of duty seems to have occurred in care homes where
57% of deaths occurred. The institutions responsible for the medical care of their
vulnerable residents, 70% of whom su fer from dementia, seem to have gone out of their
way to abandon them in their nal hours.
Deeply concerning measures put in place included:
Blanket Do Not Resuscitate orders with no consultation with family members.

Instructions not to call emergency services
Reduced sta – in some cases residents were left malnourished and dehydrated
The BMJ https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1931 stated: “Only a third of the

excess deaths seen in the community in England and Wales can be explained by Covid-
19.”
One could be forgiven for surmising that, rather than mere gross negligence, a sinister cull
to reduce care costs was put in place across the world.
Indeed, this is the conclusion of Denis Rancourt, Ph.D, former full professor of physics
and researcher with the Ontario Civil Liberties Association in Canada
All-cause mortality during COVID-19: No plague and a likely signature of mass homicide
by government response
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341832637_All-
cause_mortality_during_COVID-
19_No_plague_and_a_likely_signature_of_mass_homicide_by_government_response
Rancourt’s view is shared by Iain Davis who hits the nail on the head:
“COVID-19 has been circulating for at least a year and yet there was no notable increase in
unseasonable mortality anywhere until Lockdown regimes were imposed between late February and
late March 2020. Let me repeat that: everywhere, the overall or “all cause” mortality data
consistently tells the same story: there was no notable deviation from the statistical norm in any
country until lockdown regimes were imposed.”
https://www.ukcolumn.org/article/lockdown-deaths-not-covid-deaths
And when did I claim “this was just the lu”?
This is Murder One.

15 0 Reply
Reply to Vlad
Looks like the paid shills are looding into the o f-guardian comments with their
misinformation. The wonderful internet.
They all spout the same tired lie that was prescribed to them by their handlers back in
March, like a broken record:
Flu doesn’t ll your ICU, until you run out of beds, like it’s currently happening in my country.
This will never stop- unless every one of the covid zombies is gagged… DID YOU KNOW
COVID CAN INFECT THROUGH THE INTERNET?? Scientists have proven it!
I’m actually all for disabling the comments on o f-g!

0 -1 Reply
Vlad Oct 19, 2020 6:53 PM
Reply to Almondson
Yeah, because hiding your head in the sand will stop COVID for sure.
Meantime, here we currently 757 ICU beds currently occupied out of 1050 available for
COVID patients. A month ago, there were just 461 occupied, so there has been an
increase of 296 occupied beds in the last 30 days.
At the same rate, in another month, we will have 100% of the beds occupied. And
that’s not even the peak month for infectious respiratory diseases.
Sorry to cause you cognitive dissonance by presenting facts, but that’s the rst step
towards accepting reality. Eventually, most people will accept reality, when it comes
knocking at their door. No matter how inconvenient or uncomfortable it is.
Of course, some will choose to remain delusional. A ter all, there are a lot of lat
earthers, so you can’t convince everyone, no matter how strong the evidence is. Some
keep denying the COVID reality even when they can’t breathe anymore due to
pneumonia. Which is ne. That’s how evolution by natural selection works.
Unfortunately, the deniers also take innocent bystanders with them, by spreading the
infection even to people that took all the precautions. Otherwise I wouldn’t waste my
time here. You are free to be careless about your health. You are however not free to
take risks on behalf of others.
0 0 Reply
Rob Oct 15, 2020 10:33 AM
Great statement and thanks for the link to the “Guidance” …. WHAT ?!?!? Just set the tick to
COVID-19, just in case … I am sure there are many never got swapped back … – No words ….
1 0 Reply
Reply to Rob
And don’t forget that no post-mortems required a ter a “covid-19” death unlike every other
death in a hospital.
1 0 Reply
PeeJay Oct 15, 2020 10:35 PM
I have spoken with a work colleague that was visiting his dying grandmother that was
ghting cancer, when she died the doctor wanted to put covid as the cause of death,
my cousin’s friend had a so called PCR test, she had nasal infection which she didn’t
know about and the sic PCR test came back positive, subsequent clinical tests
con rmed she was not infected with covid at all, my brother’s colleague reported that
he has covid symptoms, an ambulance came to take a swab test, they forgot to take it
with them, week later he was diagnosed positive… These are reports from people I
have full trust with. In the age of capitalism and corrupt doctors, which one will not
use the nancial incentives put in place to lie about covid for their own bene t ?
1 0 Reply
Stephen Oct 13, 2020 8:08 AM
Con rmed number makes sense too as we already did an antibody test at just over 1/2 % infection
rate
0 0 Reply
Emanuel Oct 12, 2020 9:30 PM
This article says right,. No one from Gates , or other Richest people on the word , no give you any
penny. Because this joke virus is a good business. Look article :
UBS: BILLIONERS KNOW HOW TO MAKE MONEY
GALLERIES | Friday, October 9 (15:20)
Since the outbreak of the coronovirus pandemic, the fortunes of billionaires have increased by
more than a quarter (27.5%) and now stand at $ 10.2 trillion. – according to the report of the Swiss
bank UBS.
8 -2 Reply
Itachi Uchiha Oct 12, 2020 7:23 PM
primary source (video recording):
https://youtu.be/ kByw47n–s
4 -1 Reply
Stephen Oct 13, 2020 8:11 AM
Reply to Itachi Uchiha
Thanks buddy
2 0 Reply
fabrizio nocivelli Oct 12, 2020 5:20 PM
all you need is math lohn jennon
5 0 Reply
Hideo Watanabe Oct 12, 2020 3:45 PM
The death toll of COVID-19 was politically skewed.

CDC’s new 2020 ICD-10-CM code U07.1 became e fective on October 1,2019 for the disease
described 2019-nCoV Acute Respiratory Disease.
As this code allows to count the death con rmed or presumed COVID-19 without autopsy,
mortality has been in lated.
English parliament approved the same code on March 26, 2020 and WHO noti ed worldwide to
use this code.
In my country, Japan, it was June when the previous mortality was revised upward.
PCR positive does not mean infection at all. Swab taken for testing is the garbage box of live or
dead microbes including bacteria and PCR ampli es unidenti ed active and inactive microbes.
10 0 Reply
NobodyUKnow Oct 12, 2020 5:44 PM
Reply to Hideo Watanabe
Interesting to see that they described SARS-CoV-2 as a disease in October 2019, long before
the pandemic was declared.
The world is getting curioser and curioser. What did they know, and when did they know it?
3 -1 Reply
Luke Oct 14, 2020 4:58 PM
Hey Hideo,
do you have a source that proves Covid-19 was already included in the ICD-10 on October 1st,
2019? According to my research Covid-19 was rst implemented in the ICD on April 1st, 2020.
https://ruralhealthinfocenter.health.mo.gov/new-icd-10-cm-diagnosis-code-u07-1-for-
covid-19/
Please send me your source. I would like to verify it!
Best regards,
Luke from Germany
0 -1 Reply
Hideo Watanabe Oct 15, 2020 5:13 AM
Reply to Luke
Thank you for the question.

Your “e fective April 1, 2020” is of the State of Missouri, right?
It was August 7 CDC update from which I jumped to ICD10Data.dom to nd “e fective on
October 1, 2019”, which I took the screen shot. However, When I visited the site on October
5, 2020, I found the e fective date changed to October 1, 2020.
https://www.icd10data.com/ICD10CM/Codes/U00-U85/U00-U49/U07-/U07.1?
bclid=IwAR2-v-6C5k0stFbZk0CTyRGcnPerh2ZMA2DD1unwGHARA72BDJn-b37yvRM
In order to straighten out this confusing date matter, I recommend you visit the NHS site
“Coronavirus Act – excess death provisions: information and guidance for medical
Practitioners (31 March 2020)”
https://improvement.nhs.uk/documents/6590/COVID-19-act-excess-death-provisions-
info-and-guidance-31-march.pdf? bclid=IwAR0AJq upANtOw-
cGwjeWIIYMW47mneFMjohRyHfrfZ0bNLg7dM_rcKPYI

From this site, you can go to “Guidance for doctors completing Medical Certi cates of
Cause of Death in England and Wales”
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachm
ent_data/ le/877302/guidance-for-doctors-completing-medical-certi cates-of-cause-
of-death-covid-19.pdf? bclid=IwAR33lnP944YpsIQz6wRxtd-
mZVGm_Rqfx7DZgMh3HdYZO1tPGjf U9IjUpaE

Read the section “3 Referring deaths to the coroner” there and you can nd the same
guideline as CDC’s directive to each state in the US States and WHO’s noti cation to the
world.
Thanks again,
1 0 Reply
Reply to Luke
Addition:
Let me copy the description from the original screen shot.
1. U07.1 is a billable/speci c ICD-10-CM code that can be used to indicate a diagnosis for
reimbursement purposes.
2. Short description:2019-nCoV Acute Respiratory Disease.
3. ICD-10-CM U07.1 is a new 2020 ICD-10-CM code that became e fective on October 1,
2019.
4.This is the American ICD-10-CM version of U07.1-other international versions of ICD-10
U07.1 may di fer.
Hideo
1 0 Reply
PeeJay Oct 15, 2020 10:44 PM
Hi Hideo, have a look at a link you provided using way back machine from archive.org,
you are correct, e fective as of 1st of October 2019, very curious.
https://web.archive.org/web/20200502180121/https://www.icd10data.com/ICD10C
M/Codes/U00-U85/U00-U49/U07-/U07.1
1 0 Reply
Reply to PeeJay
Great. I could not nd it. Thank you.

Event 201 by World Economic Forum, Johns Hopkins and Bill and Melinda Gates
foundation started on October 18, 2019.
We live in a business world where there is no clairvoyant and we don’t make a

business plan expecting coincidence to happen.
0 0 Reply
Mordor74 Oct 16, 2020 10:31 PM

Yes , and also coincidence is : on 2015-07-23 , the Pirbright Institute led a
European patent for a coronavirus. On 2019-11-20 the European patent is
granted ‘EP3172319B1’
. https://patents.google.com/patent/EP3172319B1/en The Pirbright Institute
is funded and ‘giving grants’ by the Bill and Melissa Gates Foundation!
1 0 Reply
PeeJay Oct 15, 2020 10:47 PM
Hi Hideo, have a look at a link you provided using way back machine from archive.org,
you are correct, e fective as of 1st of October 2019, very curious.
web.archive.org/web/20200502180121/https://www.icd10data.com/ICD10CM/Codes/
U00-U85/U00-U49/U07-/U07.1
0 0 Reply
WillyA Oct 16, 2020 8:57 AM
Reply to Luke
https://nl.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/inpadocPatentFamily?
CC=US&NR=2020279585A1&KC=A1&FT=D&ND=3&date=20200903&DB=&locale=nl_N
L
Scroll to the extreme right and look at the priority dates
Inventor:
ROTHSCHILD RICHARD A [GB]
Applicant:
ROTHSCHILD RICHARD A [GB]
Priority date:
2015-10-13
Rothschild KNEW the name “Covid-19” back in 2015 when he led his rst patent for –
Covid-19
I also have the complete spreadsheep from the World Bank showing the sales (worth
billions) of Covid-19 test kits back in 2017 and 2018 BEFORE they got caught and quickly
changed it!
2 0 Reply
Reply to WillyA
This is huge!! Is there a chance the date is an error?

0 0 Reply
Neville Calleja Oct 12, 2020 2:56 PM
The 1 million COVID-19 deaths is a gross underestimation. Excess mortality due to COVID-19 is
likely to be multiples thereof. Just as an example, in mid-August, o cial gures for deaths in the
USA states 169000. In reality, the US has experienced an excess number of deaths over and above
the mortality observed in the corresponding time period in previous years, of 260 000 deaths.
This is in the US where testing has been made more or less available. Imagine how many other
people have died without ever having the opportunity of testing for COVID-19 particularly in war
zones and developing countries. So your estimated IFR is a gross underestimation as you are
comparing apples and oranges – not using the same denominator.
8 -33 Reply
Chris Oct 12, 2020 7:59 PM
Reply to Neville Calleja
Seems as it‘s much easier to simply dislike your statement, than to nd a good counter
argument. I wonder why…
6 -6 Reply
Neville Calleja Oct 12, 2020 8:31 PM
Reply to Chris
Glad you noticed.

1 -1 Reply
Fact Oct 12, 2020 8:32 PM
I have quite a bit of connection that are in the healthcare/hospital system. The reality is the
hospitals make their decisions based on two factors…revenue and liability. It is well
established that marking a patient as Covid solves both of those factors. Revenue- hospitals
make more money from the federal government marking a patient as Covid. Even the nurses
caring for these individuals make 1.5 X their normal salary. Because most elective surgeries are
no longer available, hospitals can increase revenue without the expense. Liability- Marking an
individual as Covid will reduce the liability. If one individual dies of any cause but was not
marked as Covid and administered a Post Death Covid test and tested positive then the
hospital would have liability of a misdiagnoses. They know the test has an extreme false
positive, so they will never leave to chance.
In the city that I live (2.2 million), thousands marked as Covid patients. However, I have heard
there might be 50 people being speci cally treated with a severe case. All of them are sick
with other chronic diseases and elderly. The Doctors, hospital administration and nurses that I
talk with are not too afraid of Covid and know that it is extremely overestimated.
9 0 Reply
Chris Oct 12, 2020 9:18 PM
Reply to Fact

You are making a point. I‘m 100% sure, that there are false positives, totally agree.
But I‘m also sure that there are many cases which were not tested, just because they
simply couldn‘t. And di ferent countries do have di ferent health systems. Just because
one country is systematically over-reporting the cases because it simply pays o f, doesn‘t
imply that other countries do the same.
There are even countries which systematically under-reports the cases.
There is a president who a couple of weeks ago claimed that his country only has so many
cases because they are testing too much, and they should decrease testing.
Or think of a country led by an despot in politically unstable region. They do not want
their people to think that they are a total failure in protecting them from a very tiny virus.
So can you really trust their counts?
1 -2 Reply
Almighty Oct 14, 2020 7:25 PM
Reply to Chris
The problem I see with our argument is that you are using the exact same approach in
discussion as common denialists. You’re saying things like “there are many cases
which were not tested” “there are countries which under report the cases”. How about
providing sources, links? You can’t blame people for cherry-picking and then do the
exact same thing with your argumentation. I’ve noticed this recently that a lot of the
Covid-believers are relying on information supplied by mainstream media almost
solely – you need to be aware that mainstream media can be very unreliable and
resorts to dramatism over facts for the sake of views and clicks. There are many factors
in this Covid-equation and the truth is probably somewhere in the middle. Just my
two cents.
2 0 Reply
Chris Oct 15, 2020 1:29 PM
Reply to Almighty
I agree with you that it is not a proof at all to simply state something. And I should
not have used the term „I‘m sure“. Instead I say it is very likely that there exists
also underreporting.
If there is no test, there will be no evidence. It is something which is really hard to
proof.
And I also agree that there is not just black and white.
But to me it is really unprofessional, to take the 10% (which is a much higher
number than 35 mill) as granted and not even waist a single thought that the
o cial dead count might also be higher. Instead it can only be lower…
1 0 Reply
Neville Calleja Oct 13, 2020 5:48 AM
Reply to Fact

Might be the case in your hospital but not in the rest of the world.
2 -4 Reply
AJ M. Oct 12, 2020 8:45 PM
Where are you getting that all-cause mortality is up over previous years, please?
0 0 Reply
Chris Oct 12, 2020 9:29 PM
Reply to AJ M.
This might be the source:

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm
0 -1 Reply
Reply to Chris
I was tracking CDC numbers for a few months. They’ve been adding mortalities to
their totals on a signi cant delay – like adding tens of thousands of deaths for April in
the middle of July. You could say that their data collection caught up with their
reporting. You could also say they are manipulating numbers to t the narrative,
especially since the initial narrative given as reason for the lockdowns is indefensible
at this point. Their initial case fatality projections were wildly inaccurate. So wildly
inaccurate that the only explanation imo is sickening incompetence or sickening
dishonesty.
1 0 Reply
Chris Oct 13, 2020 6:46 AM
Yeah I‘m sure you did. And because you have a masters degree in Statistics you
really know what you are talking about, I guess.
0 -5 Reply
Reply to Chris
That’s what you have to say back? And you have the audacity to call out
people for disliking a comment? Lol Your comment is the equivalent of a
dislike. I have a PhD in critical thinking, son.
2 0 Reply
Tio Marko Oct 13, 2020 1:51 AM

Actually the WHO is referring to the Case Fatality Rate, which is the number of people testing
positive. Those who have been infected and are asymptomatic or have such a mild case they
never get tested or reported, is much higher (10x says CDC). The lu’s case fatality rate is about
.1; the infection fatality rate, due to cases which are never reported, is much much lower.
Neville is correct — comparing apples and oranges.
3 -1 Reply
Tim Oct 15, 2020 1:56 AM
Reply to Tio Marko
How do you come up with that mumbo jumbo?

The CDC estimates lu cases and estimates lu deaths using a model. They don’t actually
measure lu data, no country does that I am aware of. Lets set aside the fact that models
have no predictive value (as evidenced by chaos theory).
Are you saying that when the CDC estimates its number of lu cases it estimates the
number of people who would have been con rmed to have the lu, had they been tested
by their doctor, and excludes the people who would have had lu but not gotten it tested
and had it con rmed?!
So for the 29 million Americans estimated to have got the lu in 2016-2017 by the CDC
(https://www.cdc.gov/ lu/about/burden/index.html) there is a magical extra number
somewhere that the CDC doesn’t add in that is asymptomatic lu or lu that was mild
enough for the person to not get it tested and the CDC doesn’t include it because why???
Because it knew covid was going to come along and have those features and we wouldn’t
be able to give a comparison that would scare the crap out of people enough? So they
kept some lu numbers up there sleeve to tweek the IFR down like you say?
Sounds like bollicks to me. That number is the number CDC thinks got the lu. Period. So
Neville is not in fact correct or he may be correct but not by your assumption.
It matters how data is generated. You should try and understand that.
1 0 Reply
nik Oct 13, 2020 8:08 PM
you forgot to mention that those exess deaths are the result of Cuomo who murdered a lot of
old people in nursing homes.
2 0 Reply
“In reality, the US has experienced an excess number of deaths over and above the mortality
observed in the corresponding time period in previous years, of 260 000 deaths.”
Any evidence for this remarkable claim or did you just pull it out of your derriere?
If it was the killer you claim, then all of us on this forum would know someone who died of it. I
don’t even know someone who has tested positive for it.
0 0 Reply
Tim Oct 15, 2020 1:33 AM
Did you actually watch the WHO video? See the little chart there of African infections? It
looked very much to me like they have had a spike and then it’s gone. Pretty developing
Africa. Not much in the way of health care or money for pointless lockdowns…..
There are at least as many arguments that deaths have been vastly over reported. In the US
de Blasio basically said “if someone dies alone and we don’t know why, it should be counted
as covid”
https://www.nydailynews.com/coronavirus/ny-coronavirus-death-toll-dying-at-home-de-
blasio-20200408-st3unrzzwncchckjxu4rcrwkiy-story.html I would not think you would be
naive enough to believe that such carelessness with important data (and politicization of that
data) was not happening a lot and was not being reported on. Especially given the
overwhelming fear and panic narrative.
Hospitals in the US (and in India) get more funding for covid deaths. There is a huge amount
of reporting on it, feel free to google it. So there is a clear incentive to over report. What is the
incentive to under report given the massive global crowd hysteria we are experiencing?
Nevermind the absolute, undisputable fact that most of the covid deaths are in those over 75
and with pre-existing health conditions. Many of those conditions are very serious. Many of
those that died would have died in the next 6 months anyway. If you are dying of cancer and
have three months to live and you get covid, did covid kill you or the cancer? I don’t know and
I doubt a doctor would….either way it certainly further clouds your argument.
So maybe deaths are a bit higher or a bit lower.
What is certainly, astronomically higher, is cases. The asymptomatic rates may be as high as
90%. Nevermind the fact that for most people, if they do have symptoms they are mild (so
probably not reported or tested, why would you go near a testing station in this climate of
hysteria for mild symptoms?). And they are all like cold or lu symptoms which is something
we have all had. Let me ask you this. Given the hysteria around covid if you get a bad
cold…..are you going to go get tested? Or just a sni le, sore throat, runny nose? I mean it
couldn’t be covid right because that stu f kills you just look on the news. Cases will be hugely
under reported. They cannot be anything but.
There is your counter argument.
1 0 Reply
TIME TO CLEAN UP THE COMMENTS

0 0 Reply
Chris Oct 12, 2020 1:39 PM

You should not forget that the IFR for Covid corresponds to the availability of intensive care. If you
have only 100‘000 beds available but you need 500‘000 of them, you can only hope that you don‘t
need treatment yourself. And the IFR will instantly increase. This would happen very quickly
without any protection. Italy had those problems…
1 -8 Reply
Jan J Oct 14, 2020 10:22 PM
Reply to Chris
That’s included in the 0.14% gure though, because it covers everything that has happened
so far
1 0 Reply
The Who Oct 12, 2020 12:37 PM
Here is that clip your looking for

https://videos.dailymail.co.uk/video/mol/2020/10/05/3029748568336714382/960x540_MP4_302
9748568336714382.mp4
2 0 Reply
BlackSox Oct 12, 2020 10:39 AM
For crying out loud, the reason infection rates have been contained to an extent is due to the
‘lockdown, distancing & mask wearing’. None of these ‘restrictions’ are imposed for ‘ lu’ so
comparisons like this are complete nonsense.
10 -28 Reply
El Oct 12, 2020 11:38 AM
Reply to BlackSox
The death rate is still the same! it’s basic MATH!

7 -6 Reply
Fact Oct 12, 2020 11:41 AM
Reply to BlackSox
Blacksox, why can pollen and or the smoke from the res in California move through the air
with jet streams but viruses cannot? They are smaller. Even smaller than what can be ltered
by N95 mask. So, everyone will be exposed and and we know that 99.9% will be ne. Prior to
Covid we had 130 million on the brink of starvation, we have at least doubled it based on
academia research papers. We have had triple the suicides, double the overdoses and we
have not seen the economy fully absorb the lockdown economically. So, more death of
despair is coming.
When the imposed plan to stop a low fatality virus kills more than the virus then one should
change the plan.
24 0 Reply
AlaskanWhiskey Oct 14, 2020 8:03 AM
Reply to Fact
you have my respect brother. Spot on. Seems your not like the Other sheep out here who
believe a muzzle will protect them.
2 -1 Reply
Reply to Fact
Hi, Fact.
You asked, “why can pollen and or the smoke from the res in California move through
the air with jet streams but viruses cannot?”
I’m assuming that’s not a rhetoric question and you really want to get an answer.
Pollen and smoke particles are light enough to move through the air (they don’t apply
enough force against air resistance to fall like a rock)… assuming they’re not wet.
If you mix pollen or dust with saliva or water, it lls fall instead of moving through the air.
Suppose you nd a dusty book. If you let it fall, the dust will fall with the book.
As far as I know, viruses usually disintegrate outside organic luids and they a means of
transportation to get inside a host. When someone, for instance, sneezes, the viruses are
inside droplets of luids (saliva, mucus, …) which fall faster than pollen and smoke. There
are some pathogens that can still exist and be infectious in smaller particles (airborne
droplet nuclei) that can move in the air much longer, for some hours, but those particles
are drier than droplets and, as far as I know, most viruses disintegrate in those conditions.
May the dislikes begin!!!

0 -1 Reply
BeSmart Oct 12, 2020 9:10 AM
Wrong conclusion. Simple math is not appropriate. What they di fer in is the speed of
propagation. COVID can thus cause a local overload of health care, which can drastically increase
the mortality rate (see NY). However, the 10% above is an average over urban and rural areas. In
addition, COVID has many other serious side e fects besides mortality alone, which the lu does
not have.
9 -29 Reply
Jan J Oct 12, 2020 10:57 AM
Reply to BeSmart
So applying the de nition of “infection fatality rate” (IFR) to o cially sanctioned numbers is
not “appropriate”? an IFR is an IFR… fractions and percentages are basic math…
4 0 Reply
BeSmart Oct 12, 2020 2:45 PM
Reply to Jan J
Again, the conclusion of this comparison is wrong because it lacks i.a. the basic
reproduction number R0 which is crucial. It means that the IFR of COVID will drastically
increase once a certain amount of people are infected (in a local area).
4 -9 Reply
Arby Oct 12, 2020 3:23 PM
Reply to BeSmart
As for ‘R’, use your browser’s ‘ nd’ feature and go directly to John Lee in my blog post
titled “Boris, Matt, et al, trample God’s standards (honesty, justice, compassion) and
abuse the people. “What are any of you going to do about it?” is their attitude.”
0 -1 Reply
El Do Oct 12, 2020 11:42 AM
Reply to BeSmart
Wrong conclusion yourself, many people died from false treatment, there is a higher death
rate in people with low vitamin D levels and in places where there is more air pollution. Read
the studies please please read the studies
5 -5 Reply
Arby Oct 12, 2020 3:28 PM
Reply to El Do
Hell, about a million a year die at the hands of the Rockefeller health care system in the
US as a result of taking medicine ‘as prescribed’!
6 -2 Reply
WillyA Oct 16, 2020 9:08 AM
Reply to El Do
DO NOT GO OUT in the sun – YOU WILL GET SKIN CANCER. More utter bollocks. It’s the
sun screen which causes the cancer or every white person in Africa, Central and South
America and the Middle East would have skin cancer. Most White farmers in Africa DON’T
use sun screen and they DON’T get cancer.
How do I know that? I WAS ONE OF THEM.

0 0 Reply
Beebop Oct 12, 2020 12:23 PM
Reply to BeSmart

ok but when comparing the CFR of Flu to COVID we’d be using the same metric, so what’s the
problem?
1 0 Reply
Reply to Beebop
See answer above

0 -2 Reply
Beebop Oct 12, 2020 12:24 PM
Reply to BeSmart
Flu has plenty of serious side e fects if you’re ill enough to su fer them as complications which
is exactly the same situation as COVID.
8 -1 Reply
Reply to Beebop
20% of all infected people have a severe course. Initial studies indicate that the
pulmonary alveoli are undergoing permanent changes, that the virus attacks not only the
lungs but also the skin, organs and brain. Also, if you have been connected to a respirator,
you have dramatically higher risk of getting Alzheimer in later years. This means that
even if you survive Corona, years later you could still be seriously a fected. This is not
included in the stated IFR and in my opinion is not comparable to the side e fects of lu.
2 -8 Reply
Fact Oct 13, 2020 2:51 AM
Reply to BeSmart
Is that what it does? Is the role of a virus to cause havoc? Does it try to kill us this killing
itself?
0 0 Reply
Reply to Fact
A virus is a natural phenomenon just as a hurricane is one, no more and no less.

0 0 Reply
Reply to BeSmart
Yes, yes, covid is a virus from outer space that behaves unlike anything else in nature.
Most of the time it has no symptoms, and if it does, its symptoms are reminiscent to
the lu. But alas! “Sometimes” it causes organ damage or your limbs to fall o f. And
sometimes your lungs fail. Give me a break! You sound like a lunatic, which makes
sense, because you are defending lunacy.
The much more probable scenario based in actual critical thought is that they are
diagnosing people with covid who already have much more serious underlying
illnesses, and attributing symptoms from those underlying illnesses to covid. Not hard
to see through this sham. Sit down with your nonsense.
3 -1 Reply
Covid behaves exactly like other viruses, showing stronger symptoms in some and
milder or no symptoms in other cases.
The theory that the symptoms are due to other diseases lacks certain logic. It has
been proven that even young, healthy athletes without any underlying disease
have shown serious symptoms. In addition, many corona patients show very
unusual symptoms like losing their sense of taste and smell, which is usually rare.
0 0 Reply
Tim Oct 15, 2020 2:06 AM
Reply to BeSmart
Flu also attacks skin, organs and the brain.

https://www.cdc.gov/ lu/symptoms/symptoms.htm
Serious lu cases end up on ventilators. There were many e forts to stock pile
ventilators for the next lu pandemic
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5443432/
You are being confused by media hysteria. There is very little that covid does that lu
does not. The “long covid” cases seem to be an exception. Of course there, the
possibility is that we are simply haven’t looked for “long lu” and it exists in some rare
cases, like long covid and is diagnosed as something else. But I am just postulating
there.
1 0 Reply
Reply to Tim
You’re right that serious lu cases can also end up on ventilators. But I don’t know
how many cases that makeup and how long arti cial respiration can then last. As
far as I know, the risk of Alzheimer’s increases dramatically a ter a certain number
of days on the ventilator, which is regularly exceeded in COVID patients. In
general, the risk for serious lung diseases (c. 20% of all infected persons) is also
higher than for lu.
But you are wrong to say that the lu also a fects the skin, other organs, and the
brain the way COVID does. Your link does not prove this either. If you have a pain
in your limbs, it does not necessarily mean that your arms are a fected, because
your brain only sends out corresponding pain impulses, etc. The lu is primarily a
disease of the respiratory tract. However, in addition to the respiratory tract,
COVID probably also attacks the heart, liver, kidneys, and brain (loss of the sense
of taste and smell is probably due to the in luence of the virus on the brain, not on
the nose/tongue). In addition, some already healthy COVID patients show late
e fects such as reduced lung capacity, exhaustion, or concentration problems.
Time will tell when and whether this will fade away.
I admit that the current information situation can be misleading. The information
under the above link suggests that COVID and lu are similar. One reason for this
is that this site has been created to help people make this distinction based on
acute, visible symptoms. It may therefore deliberately not address everything, and
on the other hand, many ndings on COVID are still very new. O ten there are
only preliminary results, which need further research. However, there are already
many indications that there is even more risk for humans than initially thought,
which is why we should remain cautious.
0 0 Reply
Tim Oct 15, 2020 10:04 PM
Reply to BeSmart
Thanks for your reply @Besmart

Ventilators are a bad course of treatment for any disease. Nearly 80% of
people who go on to ventilation die. As time has gone on ventilator use to
treat covid has dropped massively. They are a last resort, not very e fective and
a bit of a red herring.
Absolutely covid causes damage to other organs and the brain. But I would
implore you and all responsible citizens to google lu + (insert your new scary
thing that covid does here). Almost always you nd they are analagous.
Here is a study on quantifying the neurological problems in covid:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/acn3.51210
Here is study on severe neurological symptoms in lu:

https://bmcinfectdis.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12879-019-4636-5
In the lu paper it reveals that three quarters of these neurological
manifestations of the lu…occur in children.
Lets think about this. Do you believe that if the same thing was observed in
covid that it would not be sprayed all over major media outlets? I think it
worse that it a fects children more to be honest as children represent potential
while an 82 year old (average age of covid death in the UK from the ONS
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-8821113/The-average-age-death-
coronavirus-82-4-years-writes-DAVID-ROSE.html ) has had there chance and
now represents a burden to society.
Blunt? Yes. Ethical dilemma? Certainly. But we live in a world of nite

resources. Choices have to be made where there is no good answer only a
better or less worse answer. Seriously damaging the long term prospects of
millions of children around the world for the sake of a tiny percentage of
elderly people who have already had their chance in life seems, in itself, both
unethical and a waste of dwindling resource. People may not like harsh
realities but the universe doesn’t give a shit.
Here is a review of various lu related neurological weirdness including an

outbreak of Parkinsons some think was related to the pandemic of 1918.
Coronavirus…..is a virus…..and generally viruses end up in all parts of the body.
It should be obvious and relatively unimportant that this coronavirus has all
the features of other virus infections. Yet it is not potrayed as such in the
media. Why? Seriously we have to ask why? The CDC estimates 61000 lu
deaths in the US in 2017/2018. But there worst case estimate was 95 000. The
US hit 61000 covid deaths around the end of April. But the globe was freaking
out long before than. Why? Why? I heard nothing about the 2017/2018 lu
outbreak that resulted in around 60 000 dead Americans. Why?
Further : Any type of serious infection or critical illness can cause kidney injury, Sood
said, who added that viral infections like in luenza also caused muscle breakdown.
Kidneys are damaged as they lter out the broken-down muscle cells.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-swine-kidneys-
idUSTRE63E3VU20100415
This paper shows lu damage occurring in the liver probably as a secondary

e fect of T cell activity:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1606546/
As far as the heart goes:

https://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletter_article/another-reason-to-get-
a- lu-shot-your-heart and with in that linked article: Over the years, a number of
studies have linked lu with cardiovascular problems. An analysis of 39 studies showed
consistent connections between in luenza and heart attack or cardiovascular-related
death (Lancet Infectious Diseases, October 2009).
None of these papers were di cult to nd. All seem to be from reputable
sources. Whatever that means now. I wonder why you did not search yourself
before you said: But you are wrong to say that the lu also a fects the skin, other
organs, and the brain the way COVID does.
I submit to you that the classic media, struggling with falling ad revenues, has
a huge incentive to scare people to sell more ads. I pass no judgement on that
they are desperate and play a valuable roll and big tech is exploiting them
massively without footing many of their expenses.
In this paper they discuss an evolutionary tendency to focus on bad news

based around the idea that bad news has more cost to ignoring then good
news. The news that “there are fresh berries in the valley over there” is good to
be sure. But if you don’t heed it, you miss out on the berries. Probably not the
end of your life although I do like berries. The news that “there is a sabre tooth
tiger in the valley over there”, is obviously more signi cant as that could result
in serious injury and/or death. There is your evolutionary pressure to focus on
bad news over good https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/why-is-there-
no-good-news/ not a fact but it explains all this craziness much better than
the idea that the covid outbreak is anything particularly alarming.
This has been further ampli ed by social media which has no real rules for
facts at all. And is run by very skewed incentives. Watch the social dilemma on
Net lix to understand that.
This is the only way I can ascertain that you (who I suspect is an intelligent
person) could tell me that I am wrong about covid and lu causing very similar
issues throughout the human body, and not even checking beforehand.
Something that would not have taken you much time.
Amplify that by millions and we have possibly the largest over reaction in
human history which is what I rmly believe we have here.
0 0 Reply
Reply to BeSmart
So your claim is covid behaves exactly like other viruses, but then you go on to
claim it does indeed cause organ failure. Diseases that attack your organs,
which are mostly bacterial, hereditary, and lifestyle in cause (not viral), don’t
behave like a common cold in 99% of the cases. That’s just a ridiculous claim. I
think you are the one who’s confused.
0 0 Reply
Reply to BeSmart
Covid is a common coronavirus, as several scienti c studies have already

shown (see Stanford, Kreis Heinsberg, and USC studies), whose case fatality
de nition is completely fraudulent. If you attributed deaths to common
coronaviruses in years past the way they are doing with covid, you’d have
pandemics in those years too. Hundreds of thousands of very ill people, who
die from their serious underlying illnesses, contract coronaviruses every year
because they are prone to infections. They don’t die from the coronavirus. The
same is true of covid.
0 0 Reply
Tim Oct 15, 2020 2:00 AM
Reply to BeSmart
What serious side e fects beside mortality that lu does not have?
0 0 Reply
Reply to BeSmart
TIME TO CLEAN UP THE TRASH IN THE COMMENTS

0 0 Reply
Dennis Oct 12, 2020 6:27 AM
There is no one infection fatality rate (IFR) because depends strongly on age. We can say the IFR
for the USA population is 0.8% meaning that if a random person in the USA is infected their
chance of dying is 0.8%. That is about 16x worse than seasonal lu. If, instead of a random person,
a 75 year old is infected their chance of dying is about 4%, and for a 20 year old the chance is only
about 0.004%. That’s a 1000 ratio. The age dependence is that extreme! This means that Ryan’s
estimate that 0.14% of all covid-infected people died is perfectly compatible with our saying the
IFR for the USA population is 0.8%. The percentage that dies depends on the ages of the infected
people. Many populous countries have much younger demographics than the USA, and in almost
all countries during recent months their younger people have a higher infection rate than their
older people. Find a good recent paper on covid-19 IFR, such as the one at
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.23.20160895v5.full.pdf, and do some
arithmetic. You will nd that for quite plausible distributions of ages of infected persons 0.14% of
them die.
5 -3 Reply
Jan J Oct 12, 2020 10:59 AM
Reply to Dennis
of course there is an “age band” IFR, CDC even publishes this data. The point here is taking
the OFFICIAL deathcount and dividing by assumed infections (assumed by none other than
the WHO) nets you an AVERAGE IFR of 0.14%. We don’t need to reference a research paper to
know this.
3 0 Reply
Dennis Oct 12, 2020 6:44 PM
Reply to Jan J

No, you can’t call it “AVERAGE IFR” without specifying what the average is taken over. That
0.14% gure is an average taken over the people who caught the virus. That selection of
people is not representative of the human population because, due to the behavioral
antics of the young, who correctly regard themselves as pretty safe, the young are over-
represented among the infected. Ryan’s estimate only implies that 0.14% of the people
who caught the virus died. It does not imply that a person randomly chosen in the USA,
should they become infected, has 0.14% chance of dying. That gure is 0.8%. In
Germany, with its slightly older population, the gure is 1%. In India, with its considerably
younger population, the gure is about 0.35%. A WHOLE WORLD AVERAGE IFR can be
calculated, and should be, but this is not what you are calling AVERAGE IFR. Think about
it.
0 -2 Reply
Jan J Oct 14, 2020 10:41 PM
Reply to Dennis
What is your basis for claiming that the 780 million estimate that the WHO provided
is not representatively distributed? they made no such remarks. Most of the worlds
population is young, both the average and median age of the world population is
around 30(!) years old. have a look at “world age structure”. Of course a much larger
amount of young are going to be in a representative 10%, and that’s FINE.
If you want to talk about age-band IFR, the CDC already has estimates of that. It’s
5.4% among the 70+ in the US, but the rates amongst the young is so ridiculously low,
and their numbers are so much greater, that the weighted average IFR turns out to
be… low, which is exactly what this article demonstrates. the rest is just deliberate
obfuscation of this very simple fact.
1 0 Reply
Dennis Oct 15, 2020 12:23 AM
Reply to Jan J
Dr. Ryan of WHO spoke of 10% of the world’s population having been infected
with covid-19. If those are distributed according to the world’s age structure, so
10% of each age band were infected, then we should expect 0.58% of 10% of the
world’s population to have died. That’s 4.5 million people, which obviously didn’t
happen. Yet I think you would agree that the IFR for the whole world is about
0.58%, while for Germany it is about 1.0%, for USA about 0.8%, for Brazil about
0.47%, for India about 0.35%, each dependent on the country’s age distribution.
So I looked for a half-way plausible age distribution for infections, worldwide, that
is tilted toward the young, i.e., more than 10% of the young ages; much less than
10% of the old ages, but altogether 10% of the world’s population. Here is one
example:
. That
example is compatible with IFR for the whole world being 0.65% while only 0.14%
of the infected people died.
The article thinks that Dr. Ryan’s 10% estimate con rms that covid is not as
dangerous as WHO, CDC, and others know it is. That estimate doesn’t con rm that
at all.
On Tuesday Dr. Ryan was challenged on this and he squirmed around. Field
epidemiologists are not very smart people, and their terminology is logically
lacking. There should be a clear distinction between <> and <>. The former has
value around 0.58%. The latter, if Dr. Ryan’s 10% estimate is correct, has value
0.14%.
Perhaps we agree!
0 0 Reply
Dennis Oct 15, 2020 5:52 AM
Reply to Dennis
The two missing phrases in the above are:

1. the probability that a member of a population, if he becomes infected by
disease X, will die from it.
2. the proportion of the disease X infected members of a population that die
from it.
0 0 Reply
Fact Oct 12, 2020 11:47 AM
Reply to Dennis
The age is factor in everything. If you are 75 then your chance from dying compared to 20 year
old is a higher percentage. Pick your disease, virus or bacteria. Your vessel is less resilient. So,
making the claim that a 75 year old has an increased risk is obvious. More 75 year olds die than
20 year olds. So I really have to explain that or do you really think this is new with Covid?
11 0 Reply
Dennis Oct 12, 2020 6:59 PM
Reply to Fact
At 77, I sure know about aging. But to pick a disease, how about the 1918 Flu Pandemic. It
killed 30 year olds equally as it killed 75 year olds.
. We don’t know how much this was due to infection rate by age and to the IFR by age.
The reason to look closely, numerically, at the age dependence of the covid-19 IFR is to
appraise the article we’re commenting on.
0 -2 Reply
fabrizio nocivelli Oct 12, 2020 5:29 PM
Reply to Dennis
Objective: Determine age-speci c infection fatality rates for COVID-19 to inform public health
policies and communications that help protect vulnerable age groups. Methods: Studies of
COVID-19 prevalence were collected by conducting an online search of published articles,
preprints, and government reports.
0 0 Reply
Alex Hughes Oct 12, 2020 5:32 AM
False https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ lu-kills-more-people-covid-19/

4 -14 Reply
lange yu Oct 12, 2020 6:39 AM
Reply to Alex Hughes

Dont be stupid. “snopes” is a le tist media hack site. The W.H.O con rmed this already hence
the article.
12 -4 Reply
alex hughes Oct 12, 2020 7:18 AM
Reply to lange yu
Don’t be da t! The WHO said the virus was nothing back in January and also couldn’t
decided on masks. All of a sudden they are correct about the lu?
2 -3 Reply
Fact Oct 13, 2020 3:02 AM
Reply to alex hughes
Sweden kinda seems like it did ok.

2 0 Reply
Tom Oct 13, 2020 10:17 AM
Reply to Fact
So did Nicaragua. Or Taiwan. Or Japan.

1 0 Reply
Arby Oct 12, 2020 3:29 PM
Reply to lange yu
It has nothing to do with Le t and Right. And if it’s fake Le t, then it ‘is’ Right. Stop this crap
talk!
4 -1 Reply
Fact Oct 12, 2020 11:43 AM
Let’s be serious. Look up who runs snipes. They are far from fact checkers
4 -1 Reply
Arby Oct 12, 2020 4:50 PM
Reply to Fact
There’s good online reports on scammy Snopes and I thought I could easily locate them,
but that’s proving hard. Well, I’ll nd those eventually. This is a task worth performing.
James Corbett mentions Snopes and I was sure he took a close look at it, but typing
“Snopes” into his search feature is minimally helpful in this case.
*Interestingly, I can make a few comments on OG on my Pale Moon browser and then
that’s it. I tried to post the above comment just now on PM but could not. I had to re up
my Epic browser. I’ll be running a malware scan soon enough. Who knows? I don’t know
whether it’s PM or something else, whether it’s on my pc or external. Interestingly, I just
checked on my Disqus comments on Epic (they don’t show on PM) and Makia Freeman
had asked me why I don’t like Disqus! I tried to answer him but got a strange message
(same as earlier on 21st Century Wire) explaining why I couldn’t post. It was gibberish.
1 -1 Reply
kitten Oct 12, 2020 8:14 PM
Reply to Fact
You are interested in facts? Good luck!

0 0 Reply
brylym Oct 12, 2020 12:05 PM
snopes.com = total fake. husband and wife team only. no journalistic skills. they make shit up.
they are bankrupt and he has now married a hooker. sponsored by the wake society
5 -2 Reply
David Bishop Oct 15, 2020 5:39 AM
Snopes… LOL
0 0 Reply
April Oct 12, 2020 1:41 AM
The meeting took place on 10/5/2020 yet the author provides an update on 9/10/2020. I’m
guessing this was a typo and missed by the proofreader.
3 0 Reply
Bart Oct 12, 2020 5:11 AM
Reply to April
The rest of the world denotes day/month/year, hence 9th day of Oct in 2020 or 9/10/2020.
2 0 Reply
April Oct 12, 2020 7:38 PM
Reply to Bart
Ahhhhh. Thanks for reminding me. I had forgotten about that di ference.
0 0 Reply
Bill Oct 11, 2020 11:27 PM
Looking for an actual working link to con rm this so I can then share it. If I go the video linked
above at the time reference I can’t nd this quote. Please provide one. Thanks.
2 -4 Reply
e.a.greenhalgh Oct 11, 2020 8:26 PM
covid 19 was never about a respiratory disease https://medium.com/@edwardagreenhalgh/covid-

19-world-economic-collapse-under-the-rule-of-law-the-lock-downs-are-illegal-and-not-a-real-
556c4b9b4ca8
7 -2 Reply
bubbie Oct 11, 2020 5:40 PM
Why don’t they ever report on the numbers of people recovered?! Because that won’t keep people
scared and/or locked down!
21 -1 Reply
Reply to bubbie
They are reported.
The easiest way to prove it is by checking those numbers in Worldometers which is mentioned
in the post. According to that source, 29,535,972 were recovered until now.
I don’t know about USA, but here in Portugal news articles report the numbers of the
recovered.
0 0 Reply
kim back Oct 11, 2020 4:41 PM
WHO = NWO
19 -5 Reply
Jackie Oct 11, 2020 4:00 PM
Covid cured the lu in Canada. Per Canada.ca “ lu season ended abruptly in week 12” which is mid
March when covid took over. Since then we are reporting lower than normal lu instances as
compared to the last 6 to 9 lu seasons. It’s a miracle.
16 -1 Reply
Carl Oct 11, 2020 4:28 PM
Reply to Jackie
Yes saying this for a long time. It didn’t cure the lu in Japan but Flu cured covid there. 1000
covid cases to 110,000 lu cases.
6 0 Reply
Constantin Oct 11, 2020 6:57 PM

Reply to Carl
When was that?

0 0 Reply
Fact Oct 12, 2020 11:48 AM
Reply to Carl
T cell immunity
0 0 Reply
Tom M Oct 11, 2020 2:21 PM
Is there any reason to trust WHO, the CDC, FDA, governments, the media, pharma, Gates, or any
other of the useless politically motivated agencies or people who have constantly bounced us
around like a tennis ball with their nonsensical drivel? What is so special about WHO? They
trusted Gates for the last 20 years with his fake vaccines which haven’t saved anyone, especially in
Africa. Looking at the faces of these 3 numbskulls paints an indi ferent and suspecting picture.
Where is the truth about this fake pandemic and the utter destruction to millions of lives (the
living) it has and still is causing? What about the deaths (from other than the virus) caused by the
fear laden fake pandemic? And for what? WHO is a Marxist organization backed by Marxists. It
needs to be dismantled like the UN.
30 -3 Reply
Bare Faced Truther Oct 13, 2020 11:19 AM
Reply to Tom M
By ‘Marxist’, I hope you’re referring to Groucho, Harpo, Chico and Zeppo! Otherwise that is a
ridiculous assertion! You do know Karl Marx was anti-capitalist, right? Absolutely no need to
bring him in to your otherwise rather lucid rant.
4 0 Reply
Tom M Oct 13, 2020 12:21 PM
Reply to Bare Faced Truther
WHO is backed by the Gates Foundation, which is like the Clinton Foundation…both
rotten to the core. In my opinion, Gates is a closet Marxist, and like most of these people
who wear a mask, he uses capitalism to further his Marxist intents and agendas…the great
reset and a new green world order. He is paying o f WHO (using enormous contributions)
to further his vaccination and chip implant intentions for the entire world. To me, that is
somewhat like Marxism and WHO is backing it lock,stock and barrel. Follow the money,
not the fake titles and pretend do-gooding. Thanks for your input.
1 -2 Reply
Bare Faced Truther Oct 13, 2020 1:20 PM
Reply to Tom M

I do not disagree with anything you have said, except your assertion that Gates is a
‘Marxist’. You have fundamentally misunderstood what Marxism is and this detracts
from your arguments. A capitalist is by de nition NOT a Marxist! You’ll see from this
article at “In Defence of Marxism” that Marxists do not consider Gates to be doing any
good: https://www.marxist.com/bill-gates-capitalism170305.htm
2 0 Reply
Tom M Oct 13, 2020 1:59 PM
I agree that a capitalist and a Marxist are two di ferent things. However, I believe
that many Marxists have gotten smarter since Marx was around and now employ
the use of capitalism to make pro ts or gains and then use those funds to promote
Marxism. De nitions are meaningless if someone is acting apart from the picture
they are presenting. I believe that Gates wants to vaccinate the world, is invested
in numerous drug companies to that e fect, and wants implants put into everyone
for the purpose of monitoring and invading a person’s body and privacy. Microso t
is building a giant facility in Arizona to facilitate this monitoring/tracking/data
basing/marketing along with the use of 5G, although I don’t know for sure how
much Gates is involved. Also to my knowledge, he favors an all digital currency,
which will further take away all of our few freedoms remaining. It’s about control.
It’s not about capitalism or Marxism per se, but about controlling populations and
people. Gates is behind the New Green Deal and the eradication of all CO2. Again
it’s a matter of control. Money talks and Gates has enough to in luence a great
number of people and organizations. I still say Gates and his cohort Schwab are
Marxists and you can add numerous political swine from around the globe and
the US to the list.
1 -1 Reply
Bare Faced Truther Oct 13, 2020 4:01 PM
Reply to Tom M
What have you got against Marxists? Are you in the USA? Here in Europe we’re
more worried about the Far Right. However, I share your concerns about
‘control’. There is too much power and wealth in the hands of too few. A recipe
for trouble, unless those few include the Buddha or St Francis of Assisi,
perhaps. May Gates’ schemes crash like his operating systems!
2 0 Reply
Eric Blair Oct 15, 2020 1:13 PM
+1
0 0 Reply

Reply to Tom M
Wow. You really are trying to back up an argument with an opinion. Follow the money
indeed.
The fundamental problem here is that you have no idea what Marxism is (or
capitalism for that matter).
1 0 Reply
Reply to Tom M
You’re right about Gates, the WHO etc. being a bunch of untrustworthy scam artists but they
are, or represent the interests of, avaricious scumbags who are capitalist to their core, i.e. the
opposite of Marxist.
If you unironically believe Bill Gates, the WHO, Klaus Schwab, the WEF and all the other
Corona hoax clowns are Marxists, you seriously need to stop sucking Trump’s shrivelled cock
and use your brain to think logically.
Those globalist NWO one-world government totalitarians exist but they are hardcore
capitalist liberals. Read the linked article below.
http://www.wrongkindofgreen.org/2020/10/14/klaus-schwab-and-his-great-fascist-reset-
an-overview/
(Funny how some people can be skeptical about selective media outlets and politicians but
fall hook, line and sinker for the most transparent propaganda if it comes from liars they have
been convinced to “trust”.)
1 0 Reply
Brian Oct 11, 2020 2:03 PM
Covid deaths here in Japan are way less than the normal lu season, so in fact the lu deaths in
Japan are way down. Now, on the lip side the suicide rate has already almost doubled from last
year because of the covid fear PR, the suicides are 10 times the covid deaths in Japan. People
within the WHO should be held accountable for this Plandemic, Covid 19 is the lu and that’s all.
17 -1 Reply
Gary Tradar Oct 11, 2020 11:34 AM
Correction : You can watch and download Session 1 of WHO Executive Board: Special session on
the COVID-19 response on Youtube. The clip starts from 01:01:14 –
https://youtu.be/WnsomZnmLnM
1 -3 Reply
Sharon D Oct 12, 2020 7:28 AM

Reply to Gary Tradar
Thanks!
0 0 Reply
Gary Tradar Oct 11, 2020 11:02 AM
You can watch and download Session 1 of WHO Executive Board: Special session on the COVID-19
response
at this link (Youtube will not alow uploading of this video for an unknown reason) –
https://mega.nz/ le/Wkl2RKTQ#wOHm7YJ4Jp696AWo0R7fEXBXkUY_20qmQNYmXK1CMyw
2 -1 Reply
Nikola Oct 11, 2020 10:22 AM
Yes, but you should multiply the number of deaths roughly by 2. That is because they are vastly
underreported, not overreported!!! So the IFR would be around 0,3%.
0 -30 Reply
Cliff Edwards Oct 11, 2020 2:04 PM
Reply to Nikola
You might want to read this before you embarrass yourself any further:
https://o f-guardian.org/2020/07/17/uk-govt- nally-admits-covid-statistics-are-inaccurate/

13 -3 Reply
MacPaul Oct 11, 2020 8:13 PM
Reply to Nikola
Even the current numbers are overreported cause half of them goes to lockdown and
treatments with HCQ and intubation!
6 0 Reply
Sharon D Oct 12, 2020 7:43 AM
Reply to Nikola
More likely deaths are OVER reported by government agencies padding the numbers with
openly corrupt death count protocols…
1 -1 Reply
Beebop Oct 12, 2020 12:26 PM
Reply to Nikola
Ok I guess, if you say so.

0 0 Reply
Heiko Oct 11, 2020 9:00 AM

1:01:33 on the link is not correct, please give the correct time
0 -1 Reply
Roger Daltrey Oct 11, 2020 9:59 AM
Reply to Heiko
That is the correct time. Make sure that you are on “Session 1” Which is 12:00 – 15:00; it is the
one furthest down on the page. And at about 1:00:52 he gives the total deaths of one million.
4 0 Reply
Michael Jarrett Oct 11, 2020 10:00 AM
Reply to Heiko
Make sure you scroll down to Session 1, then you can watch the statement.
1 0 Reply
Arne Oct 11, 2020 1:23 AM
last night as I drove down town

to have a ball and fool around
at the streets I catch the word
they say a virus is going round
now you read the Sunday papers

watching movies late at night
how come noone told me yet
what’s on everybody’s mind:
there’s a virus going round

the word’s all over town
it’s all they talk about
and it’s going ’round and ’round
spreading over town
out on the street they break the news

you say they’re worried about the way I look
tomorrow is another day
you don’t believe a word I say
it’s going ’round and ’round
spreading over town
here comes the doctor he makes a noise

go tell the ladies go tell the boys
here comes the doctor he looks at you
he says no problem he says you’re through
there’s a virus going ’round
there’s a virus going ’round
jumps from town to town
out on the street they break the news

you say they’re worried about the way I look
tomorrow is another day
you don’t believe a word I say
spreading over town
get me going get me deep

I’d say you ly me
what a treat
it’s a losing battle
so help yourself
chuck it in what a dread wohwoh
when they say those things
when they do those things oh god
it’s a disease..
Spectral Display - There's A Virus Going Round (1…

(1…
0 -7 Reply
Arne Oct 10, 2020 10:33 PM
OT
Captain Mausi ghts against sexism. (Some seamen would rather like to let her climb their main
mast.) https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/female-cruise-captain-sexism-
troll-tiktok-video-b806321.html
Her barge has a braking distance of 386m or 4 min 35 sec from top speed 25 knots to 0, which
means that if you have scared Mausi out of the toilet or dragged her away from her make-up
mirror because the tanker ahead is on a collision course, the matter is already over. And that even
though women cannot even park cars without making mistakes. https://www.strategic-
culture.org/news/2018/11/22/gender-politics-and-sinking-of-knm-helge-ingstad/
0 -2 Reply
Arne Oct 10, 2020 10:47 PM
Reply to Arne
Maybe women should stay ashore and

wait longingly for their heroes. Otherwise
it would be called “Men and children rst!”
Blancmange - Waves (OFFICIAL MUSIC VIDEO)
0 0 Reply
Arne Oct 10, 2020 11:20 PM
Reply to Arne
Unfortunately, women do not want to listen and o ten pay for their carelessness with their
lives. Men used to save them from that. Today, a ter a tragic event, men are still to blame for
not having protected women. No matter how they do it, they are always the perpetrators.
https://genderedseas.blogspot.com/2011/01/gorch-foch-women-sea-cadets-harassed-
to.html
0 -2 Reply
Arne Oct 10, 2020 11:49 PM
Reply to Arne
Psychologically ill “pop star” jumps (dressed in women’s clothes) from cruise ship.
Allegedly he had been “bullied in his childhood”. For him a su cient reason for a media-
e fective end. As one lives, so one dies, they say. https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-
news/german-pop-star-daniel-kueblboeck-13217698
0 -1 Reply
Arne Oct 11, 2020 12:12 AM
Reply to Arne
With this adventurous couple, I wonder where the

little daughter is learning to walk? One inattentive
second, and she’s gone forever, death sails along.
HORRIFIC Sailing Into a DARK VORTEX of Wind an…

an…
0 -5 Reply
Arne Oct 11, 2020 1:47 AM
Reply to Arne
“Digitisation” has uprooted us all and alienated

us from reality, underestimating the power of the
forces of nature. Nature knows no mercy, no so-
cial services, mourning work, tramata, chair cir-
cles and safe spaces. Now we are ruthlessly at
the mercy of the rulers and let ourselves be bow-
led from one corner to the other in the back seat
of our own life car. Time to take back the wheel
and throw the “stowaways” nally out of the car.
1 -1 Reply
Arne Oct 11, 2020 2:13 AM
Reply to Arne
The British are a people of great discoverers and

conquerors. Now fate seems to turn against them
and to want to erase them from the map of history.
Ingratitude is the world’s reward. Empires come and go.

Although Germans might be gloating over this, we are
actually su fering with them. Were in the same boat.
1 -1 Reply
Arne Oct 11, 2020 2:30 AM
Reply to Arne
The lady’s natural maternal instinct to percei-

ve real dangers seems to be largely abroga-
ted. Normally mothers are already unable to
fall asleep when men who are not part of the
family stay overnight in the house or the lat.
0 -1 Reply
Arne Oct 11, 2020 2:44 AM
Reply to Arne
The only pyschological explana-

tion is that women decide emoti-
onally not rationally. She trusts
this man unconditionally. It could
prove to be a fallacy. Love’s blind.
0 -1 Reply
Admin1 Oct 11, 2020 3:19 AM
Reply to Arne

Admin
Are you seriously suggesting men are more logical and less emotional than
women?
2 0 Reply
Arne Oct 11, 2020 3:25 AM
Reply to Admin1

A quite legitimate question today.
Nevertheless, I would choose a
male doc for a serious operation.
0 -1 Reply
Arne Oct 11, 2020 2:43 PM
Reply to Arne
(“today” = nowadays)
0 0 Reply
Arne Oct 11, 2020 3:32 AM
Reply to Admin1
The crazy thing is that even women

prefer to choose male gynaecologists.
At least those of the older age group.
0 -2 Reply
Arne Oct 11, 2020 3:34 AM
Reply to Admin1
By the way, men are also the better

cooks. But that is an open secret…
0 -1 Reply
Arne Oct 11, 2020 3:42 AM
Reply to Admin1
German POWs in Russia have reported that

Russian women soldiers were much more
brutal than men. They knew: “Now It is all
over with us!” Women were also more fea-
red than men in the concentration camps.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p03200f8
1 0 Reply
Arne Oct 11, 2020 3:50 AM
Reply to Admin1
The studies of Mrs. Bennecke are also interesting

for the misjudged malice of women. Apart from the
fact that women are punished for the same crimes
much more mildly than men, as statistically proven.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lydia_Benecke
Women = so t shell & hard core.
Men = hard shell & so t core.
0 0 Reply
Arne Oct 11, 2020 4:05 AM
Reply to Admin1
Millions of women deny fathers access

to their own children. Compassion? Nil.
Would we be able to do that? I doubt it.
0 0 Reply
Arne Oct 11, 2020 4:15 AM
Reply to Admin1
Every new partner says to her lover: “How could

your ex do this to you?” The man who believes in
the veracity of those words is an idiot. Soon this
woman will turn out to be the same as the previ-
ous one. In this respect, you are obviously right:
men are the so ter ones, they su fer much worse
from separations. And more o ten draw the worse
consequences. Alcohol, drug use, suicide. The ma-
le ego su fers more drastically in the West from in-
sults and rejection. It sees its existence threatened.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Manipulated_Man
1 0 Reply
Arne Oct 11, 2020 4:37 AM
Reply to Admin1
Where is the compassion for the weakest

and most vulnerable beings on earth? “My
belly belongs to me”, say those who could
count on time’s favour. Fathers have no say.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We%27ve_had_abortions!
0 0 Reply
Arne Oct 11, 2020 5:27 AM
Reply to Admin1
By the way, it’s the same in our town: the most

brutal brawl pubs are run by old women. They
have their “boys” all under control and know
no mercy. A kind of microcosm of society.
0 0 Reply
Arne Oct 11, 2020 5:31 AM
Reply to Admin1
(“know no mercy” = give no quarter)

0 0 Reply
Arne Oct 11, 2020 5:46 AM
Reply to Admin1
There at the very bottom club law of the jungle

prevails. The rich are given, the have-nots are
taken. “It always rains where it is already wet”
or “The devil always sh*ts on the biggest pile”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_e fect
The Stranglers - No Mercy ( 7inc) Remastered .Fu…

.Fu…
1 0 Reply
Arne Oct 11, 2020 3:22 AM
Reply to Arne
But you don’t have to endanger the integrity

of your child on the high seas. You can also
get an attack dog and say: “She’s playing
with our baby, she’s not hurting anyone.”
0 0 Reply
Arne Oct 11, 2020 12:27 AM
Reply to Arne
“Frauen an Bord bringen Unglück und Mord.”Women on board bring bad luck and murder.
(Sailor’s Wisdom)
0 -1
Reply
Batson Oct 10, 2020 6:54 PM
CFR is con rmed Cases, people sick with the disease.

IFR is estimates Infections, a projection.
This author has compared apples to oranges.
Covid IFR is yes, 0.14% (INFECTION Fatality Ratio)
CV19 deaths divided by the Estimated 10% of the population = IFR of 0.14%
1,069,194 deaths / 780,000,000 (10% infected) = 0.14%
The lu kills 36,000 Americans in a population of 330,000,000.
Assuming an infection rate of 60%,
then the IFR is 36,000 / 198,000,000 or 0.02% (Covid is 7 times that)
If the population infection rate of 80%, that drops to 0.013% (Covid is 10 times that)
Now you have to take into consideration the in lated CV19 deaths, like
people dying in tra c accidents

people on chemo with a LE of 3 months
people who actually died of the u.
people who never got tested but were told their test results were positive.
etc etc
which will bring the 2 more in line.

====================================================
It is interesting to compare suicide rates for children and covid.
13 Covid deaths for children 5 to 14 (Feb 1 to June 17, 2020 –
https://www.acsh.org/news/2020/06/23/coronavirus-covid-deaths-us-age-race-14863)
6 if you Interpolated, adjust for ages and take into consideration chemotherapy.
436 Suicide deaths for children 10 to 14 in 2016
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_in_the_United_States)
I guess nobody cares much about suicides, which will be up drastically in 2020 and 2021.
6 -2 Reply
John Ervin Oct 10, 2020 11:30 PM
Reply to Batson
As more background study for the ongoing global coordination of these (and “a liated”)
psyops, Dave Emory o fers this capsule summary, available in more depth in the link, to his
radio show #1147 & 1148: “PAPERCLIP LEGACY” and it’s links to Covid19(84):
WEDNESDAY NIGHT, OCTOBER 14 (available also streaming (past) live broadcast at KPFK.org
for 60 days)
12-1 Dave Emory, ”For the Record #1147 & FTR #1148 – The Space Plane and Covid-19: The
Paperclip Legacy, Parts 2 and 3”
⋅SEPTEMBER 2, 2020 ⋅
Recorded as the 2020 GOP convention was in full swing against the background of escalating
violence in the streets of American cities, these programs set forth history fundamental to the
development of the modern GOP and Nazi/SS elements that were incorporated into the
foundation of the U.S. intelligence system at the end of World War II. Those elements, in turn,
are inextricably linked with the GOP.
Before that discussion, however, the program highlights yet another element in the Wall
Street/Third Reich/Swiss political and corporate maneuvering that set the stage for postwar
Transatlantic fascism.
Once again, Allen Dulles and his connections are front and center. With Bernie Sanders and
AOC garnering rhetorical gravitas from the so-called progressive sector, there has been
discussion of former Vice President [1944] Henry Wallace and his highly progressive political
agenda. The nature of the discussion has centered on Wallace’s political defenestration by
what has been termed “the Democratic Party’s Establishment.”
In fact, Wallace’s political demise was due to his own indiscretion. His brother-in-law was
Charles Bruggmann, the Swiss ambassador to the United States. With the massive
investment in the Swiss economy by Third Reich nance and industry and with key holding
companies in Switzerland dominating signi cant elements of the German-American
corporate relationship, Bruggmann had a vested interest in keeping Nazi Germany abreast of
U.S. plans and did so through the Abwehr and Allen Dulles.
” . . . . Both organizations received a mass of high-value intelligence via the Swiss ambassador
to Washington, Dr. Charles Bruggmann. Yet Bruggmann was no spy: his source was his
brother-in-law, Henry Wallace-who happened to be the Vice President of the United States.
Wallace was a popular, le t-wing New Dealer; privy to many of America’s most important
secrets, he was also notoriously indiscreet. . . .”
Allen Dulles
In addition to communicating the Treasury Department’s plans to de-industrialize Germany

to prevent future wars, the Bruggmann/Abwehr/Dulles axis was instrumental in betraying
Operation Safehaven, the plan to interdict the Nazi light capital program that crystallized as
the Bormann light capital program…
For a [COMPLETE] annotated, written description of this program go to:

http://spit relist.com/for-the-record/ tr-1147- tr-1148-the-space-plane-and-covid-19-the-
paperclip-legacy-parts-2-and-3/
You can subscribe to the comments made on programs and posts-an excellent source of
information in, and of, itself –http://feeds.feedburner.com/Spit reListComments
0 0 Reply
David Pedd Oct 10, 2020 4:23 PM
Oops…
1 0 Reply
Jaguarpig Oct 10, 2020 3:00 PM
What a bunch of cunts

10 -6 Reply
Load More Comments
Copyright © 2020 O Guardian.

Privacy Policy.
powered by WordPress .
Theme: O Guardian by Wild Reality.net .

DEATH STATISTICS - IFR 0.14% - WHO Accidentally Confirms Covid Is No More Dangerous Than Flu

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

DEATH STATISTICS - IFR 0.14% - WHO Accidentally Confirms Covid Is No More Dangerous Than Flu

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats



Oct 8, 2020 965

WHO (Accidentally) Confirms

e WHO’s top brass made this announcement during a special

In fact, they didn’t seem to completely understand it themselves.

At the session, Dr Michael Ryan, the WHO’s Head of Emergencies

Dr. Margaret Harris, a WHO spokeswoman, later con rmed the

As much as the WHO were attempting to spin this as a bad thing – Dr

e global population is roughly 7.8 billion people, if 10% have been

at’s an infection fatality rate of roughly or 0.14%. Right in line with

0.14% is over 24 times LOWER than the WHO’s “provisional gure” of

None of the mainstream press picked up on this. ough many outlets

UPDATE 9/10/20: In the interest of thoroughness, a desire to rely on

For some reason, although this was an important WHO meeting

“ Our current best estimates tell us that about ten

UPDATE 13/10/2020: Here is the actual ripped audio:

Many thanks to all the people who sent us in their recordings.

FILED UNDER: C OR ON AVI R U S , LATEST , STATI STI C S AN D AN ALYSI S

can you spare $1.00 a month to support independent media

Our Bitcoin JTR code is: 1JR1whUa3G24wXpDyqMKpieckMGGW2u2VX

Subscribe Connect with

Join the discussion

Franz Meier Oct 27, 2020 6:37 PM

Walt Oct 27, 2020 12:20 PM

What is the real name of Kit Nightly?

paijo Oct 25, 2020 1:49 AM

joh asu matane picek, sing bener lek rilis berita

Doris Gloor Oct 22, 2020 7:54 PM

paijo Oct 25, 2020 1:53 AM

Reply to Doris Gloor

Walt Oct 27, 2020 1:14 PM

Reply to Doris Gloor

and your quali cations are?

Bradley Oct 22, 2020 4:18 AM

Aaron Oct 23, 2020 11:48 AM

Reply to Bradley

Bam Oct 25, 2020 4:17 AM

Reply to Aaron

Rob Oct 24, 2020 11:55 AM

Reply to Bradley

Divide by 780.000.000 (10% of 7.800.000.000). The IFR = 0,14%.

Diego Oct 22, 2020 3:38 AM

biagio vuolo Oct 20, 2020 2:24 PM

THE GUYS OF https://healthfeedback.org/ , TELL US ON FACEBOOK , THIS IS A FAKE NEWS .

THESE TRAITORS WANT TO HIDE THE TRUTH .

Tack Oct 19, 2020 5:22 PM

David L Oct 21, 2020 12:28 AM

Reply to Tack

Spike Oct 25, 2020 10:49 PM

Reply to David L

No, it’s still there. I just watched it.

Jan J Oct 19, 2020 11:43 AM

Salah Elnagar Oct 19, 2020 11:11 AM

Hopefully, one recognises

Tim Oct 20, 2020 2:09 AM

Reply to Salah Elnagar

der endgegner Oct 25, 2020 10:38 AM

Reply to Almondson

no, they changed it years ago you fucking conspiracist

Invisible Oct 18, 2020 8:17 PM

Greg Smith Oct 18, 2020 8:37 PM

Reply to Invisible

So no, IMO, the comparison is still sound.,

“Exzess-Mortalität” = ‘mortality displacement’. That’s not what I