New research suggests COVID was less deadly than thought in first year of pandemic

869

•

New research suggests COVID was less deadly than thought in first year of pandemic (justthenews.com)

Meta-research pioneer John Ioannidis of Stanford cuts "infection fatality rate" by half for age groups including young people, using international "seroprevalence" review.

COVID-19 was less lethal across nearly every age group in its first full year than previously thought, according to an updated review of global research from Stanford University's Meta-Research Innovation Center (METRIC).

Between summer and Christmas 2021, METRIC's estimates of deaths from infection fell by half in multiple age groups, including young people, and less sharply in others.

The international estimates, which have not been peer-reviewed, are not substantially different from the CDC's own "best estimate" of COVID mortality in the U.S., last updated in March. They use different age ranges, making exact comparisons difficult.

The findings raise questions about ongoing COVID restrictions and mandates, particularly for schoolchildren and college students, who remain at the lowest overall risk from infection.

The risk-benefit ratio of vaccine boosters is also under scrutiny, with international authorities souring on their wide deployment and a new Israeli study finding that a fourth dose of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines doesn't stop the Omicron variant.

METRIC codirector John Ioannidis, credited by one medical publisher as having "practically invented" the field of meta-research, warned early in the pandemic that available infection data were "utterly unreliable."

His ongoing tracking of "seroprevalence," which measures COVID infection rates using the presence of antibodies in blood samples, has made him controversial in scientific circles.

Ioannidis led a study in Stanford's backyard that estimated a much higher infection rate than local authorities were reporting in spring 2020, leading to criticism of his methods. The revised paper was published last spring in an Oxford medical journal.

He has also consistently emphasized that mortality risks for the non-elderly were "very small" even in COVID "hotbeds." A June 2020 review of seroprevalence studies determined a median "infection fatality rate" (IFR) of 0.26% overall and 0.04% for everyone under 70.

Ioannidis and METRIC postdoctoral fellow Cathrine Axfors published more refined IFR estimates in July based on 23 studies from 14 countries conducted in 2020.

They further refined those estimates in December with two additional studies. All but three studies were in "high-income countries" such as the U.S., while four of the 25 lacked "age-strata observations."

To be eligible for consideration, the studies had to have more than 1,000 participants 70 or older with COVID antibodies. (Ioannadis is primarily interested in tracking the IFR of "community-dwelling elderly populations.")

The age group 0-19 still has the lowest estimated IFR with 0.0013%, or 1.3 per 100,000, but that's half the IFR of July's study. Also halved: 20-29 year-olds with an IFR of 0.0088% and 40-49 with 0.042%.

The only age group without a lower IFR in the December update was 60-69 year-olds, which increased to 0.65%. The community-dwelling elderly had an IFR of 2.9% and elderly overall 4.9%, but the study noted a "steeply increasing IFR with larger proportions of people" 85 and older.

Meta-research pioneer John Ioannidis of Stanford cuts "infection fatality rate" by half for age groups including young people, using international "seroprevalence" review. COVID-19 was less lethal across nearly every age group in its first full year than previously thought, according to an updated review of global research from Stanford University's Meta-Research Innovation Center (METRIC). Between summer and Christmas 2021, METRIC's estimates of deaths from infection fell by half in multiple age groups, including young people, and less sharply in others. The international estimates, which have not been peer-reviewed, are not substantially different from the CDC's own "best estimate" of COVID mortality in the U.S., last updated in March. They use different age ranges, making exact comparisons difficult. The findings raise questions about ongoing COVID restrictions and mandates, particularly for schoolchildren and college students, who remain at the lowest overall risk from infection. The risk-benefit ratio of vaccine boosters is also under scrutiny, with international authorities souring on their wide deployment and a new Israeli study finding that a fourth dose of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines doesn't stop the Omicron variant. METRIC codirector John Ioannidis, credited by one medical publisher as having "practically invented" the field of meta-research, warned early in the pandemic that available infection data were "utterly unreliable." His ongoing tracking of "seroprevalence," which measures COVID infection rates using the presence of antibodies in blood samples, has made him controversial in scientific circles. Ioannidis led a study in Stanford's backyard that estimated a much higher infection rate than local authorities were reporting in spring 2020, leading to criticism of his methods. The revised paper was published last spring in an Oxford medical journal. He has also consistently emphasized that mortality risks for the non-elderly were "very small" even in COVID "hotbeds." A June 2020 review of seroprevalence studies determined a median "infection fatality rate" (IFR) of 0.26% overall and 0.04% for everyone under 70. Ioannidis and METRIC postdoctoral fellow Cathrine Axfors published more refined IFR estimates in July based on 23 studies from 14 countries conducted in 2020. They further refined those estimates in December with two additional studies. All but three studies were in "high-income countries" such as the U.S., while four of the 25 lacked "age-strata observations." To be eligible for consideration, the studies had to have more than 1,000 participants 70 or older with COVID antibodies. (Ioannadis is primarily interested in tracking the IFR of "community-dwelling elderly populations.") The age group 0-19 still has the lowest estimated IFR with 0.0013%, or 1.3 per 100,000, but that's half the IFR of July's study. Also halved: 20-29 year-olds with an IFR of 0.0088% and 40-49 with 0.042%. The only age group without a lower IFR in the December update was 60-69 year-olds, which increased to 0.65%. The community-dwelling elderly had an IFR of 2.9% and elderly overall 4.9%, but the study noted a "steeply increasing IFR with larger proportions of people" 85 and older.

[–] • 1 pt

If you take out flu, car wrecks, other illnesses and any other way to die the results are no one die of COVID. No one can question the numbers because it is counted by the ones who make them up. The same people who supply the numbers also create the numbers and records. So they can add any number they want to get the result they need. Unless someone physically counts every name who died and how that record will be as accurate as our voting rolls. We know how that works Civil war soldiers still vote. We are sold a total myth like the plandemic and the fake deaths that come with it.

[–] • 0 pt

We are sold a total myth like the plandemic and the fake deaths that come with it.

Agreed. From the get go. When Trump told us of Hydroxychloroquine I thought that was the end. Who knew the Deep State would ignore it, ban it and keep the BS going?

I have Doctors and medical people in my family. They are all knowing and don't even want to hear the true about Hydroxychloroquine. See the mighty buck, drugs and personal egos have replaced the Hippocratic Oath. They are no longer looking at the human being as a person but as addition to their wallets. It is sad if all doctors cared about people under their care this plandemic would of never started or would of finished week after Trump told them the cure!

I have a doctor in my family and she is just as full of herself and ignorant to the Truth of COVID, masks etc....

(post is archived)