New data shows COVID less fatal by factor of 10 than once believed

The World Health Organization (WHO) claims 622.4 million confirmed COVID-19 cases and 6.5 million deaths.

If those figures are right, then more than 1 person in 100 who contracts COVID is likely to die of the disease. The infection-fatality rate (IFR) for COVID has been the subject of numerous research studies from the early days of the “pandemic” until today – naturally, because spinning a story about a disease so much more dangerous than influenza was an essential component of official scaremongering designed to induce compliance with newly crafted draconian restrictions.

Now it turns out that the IFR for COVID is likely far lower than what authorities were claiming two years ago, and even lower than recent more balanced studies' claims. So low, in fact, that for the average person below the age of 70, the danger of dying from (vs. “with”) COVID is orders of magnitude lower than the danger of dying in a car accident. 

A new study using data from 40 national studies into seroprevalence (investigating the presence of COVID antibodies in people) has concluded that in the 0-59 years age bracket, the median IFR for COVID is less than 0.032 percent, and even when those up to the age of 69 are included, the IFR is still less than 0.082 percent. In other words, for every 3,125 people up to the age of 59 infected with COVID, just one will die from the virus; up to the age of 69, one out of every 1,220 people will die.

The authors of the study point out that this information is important because “94 percent of the global population is younger than 70 years and 86 percent is younger than 60 years.” Providing the fullest possible information on the IFR to those being offered the option of vaccination against COVID should have been a central pillar of informed consent; however, the authors of the study note that available data were manipulated at various points in order to inflate the IFR:

 … some previous calculations have substantially increased their initial IFR estimates by multiplying them for a factor of under-ascertainment of COVID-19 deaths … it is unclear whether such large corrections are justified. In particular, for the non-elderly age groups, deaths among young adults and children may be less likely to have been missed, as opposed to deaths of elderly individuals where causal attribution to a single cause can be more difficult…

Furthermore, they stress data that include information on comorbidities is scarce, although the results of one national study from Denmark suggest that the IFR for those under 51 years of age with no comorbidities is just 0.00336 percent, and that even those in their sixties face an IFR of just 0.281 percent if they are basically healthy.

This is approximately half the median global rate the study found for the 60-69 age group (0.501%). For those in their fifties, the IFR was found to be 0.129%; in their forties, 0.035%; in their thirties, 0.011%, in their twenties, 0.003%; and in the under-20 age group the IFR was 0.0003% (3 per million).

The study's authors also note that this lowest figure is significantly lower than the trough of previous calculations which was estimated at 0.0023% (for age 7), and that

our median IFR estimates are roughly 10-fold lower than these previous calculations among children and young adults and 3-6-fold lower among adults 40-69 years old.

It is important to stress that these figures refer to what the study calls the pre-vaccination era, when the more virulent Wuhan, Alpha, and Delta strains predominated. The study's lead author, Prof. John P.A. Ioannidis of Stanford University, has been studying infection-fatality rates for COVID almost since the outbreak of the novel coronavirus; this study is the result of access to a much larger data set, and reinforces the argument he has been consistently making – that COVID is not nearly as dangerous as many have been led to believe.

As early as May of 2020, Prof. Ioannidis submitted a paper entitled, “Infection fatality rate of COVID-19 inferred from seroprevalence data,” which was printed by none other than the WHO itself. The median infection fatality rate he calculated there was 0.05% in the under-70 age group – that is to say, the information available even at that early stage indicated that there was no especial reason for any healthy young person to fear SARS-CoV-2. And yet, despite Prof. Ioannidis' sterling reputation as “one of the most-cited scientists across the scientific literature" (Wikipedia), his conclusions were challenged and he was personally maligned.

If you look up Prof. Ioannidis today on Wikipedia, you will no longer find the above-mentioned quotation; it has since been replaced by a tepid endorsement of a scientist “who has made contributions to evidence-based medicine, epidemiology, and clinical research,” followed by the declaration that “Ioannidis has been a prominent opponent of lockdowns during the COVID-19 pandemic," which of course is not surprising given that he was all too aware that lockdown was an entirely inappropriate response to the disease whose effects he was studying.

Ioannidis was not alone; the thousands of signatories to the Great Barrington Declaration made the same point – that the young, who were at no significant risk from COVID, should not be quarantined to protect themselves nor to protect others. Like Ioannidis' cautionary conclusions, the GBD was consigned to media oblivion despite the credentials of those supporting it and the data they cited to bolster their arguments. (Two of the Declaration's creators are now suing U.S. President Biden, the CDC, and Dr. Fauci, among others, for colluding to silence them.) And the establishment storyline prevailed: Here was a novel disease that posed a devastating threat to humankind and was likely to kill off far more people than succumbed during a bad flu year. 

“We find that COVID-19 is definitely significantly more fatal than influenza at all ages above 30 years,” concludes one study, with a dramatic color-coded graph to prove it.

Other articles in prestigious publications (The Lancet, Nature, and many more) reiterated the point, similarly illustrated for added emphasis. And then, when the “vaccines” emerged, they were hailed as the main factor responsible for relegating COVID to second-place behind influenza as a killer. 

By contrast, just two fringe news outlets have cited Prof. Ioannidis' latest study, even though here we have confirmation of what so many suspected and indicated two years ago.