Medical ‘experts’ struggle to explain Africa’s very low Covid vaccination and death rates

Thanks. Exactly my point.

Case fatality rate. Not mortality rate. And it is the WHO which you source, but which I question as to impartiality.

From WIKI, which is also not always impartial, but: "The 2002–2004 outbreak of SARS, caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV or SARS-CoV-1), infected over 8,000 people from 29 countries and territories, and resulted in at least 774 deaths worldwide."

As a function of the world's population (death / mortality rate), not the reported cases (CFR), this was a tiny blip on the world's deaths, which the CDC's states amount to about one percent of a given population. What ended the 2002-2004 outbreak? It withered away, as viruses attenuate.

The 2002-2004 "event" was not a media event like this last three years. And the deaths attributed are extremely small by comparison to today's WHO pandemic.

This is an apples-and-oranges comparison. CFR versus mortality rate is a matter of data acquisition and aggregation.

At least "at least 774 deaths worldwide" or "935 associated deaths" is not worthy of being fit into a calculation of the actual mortality rate, so small a result would be found.

One reads from the UM report, " 'a more accurate and unbiased' method of estimation." Estimation is estimation. The number of times the word is used in the article is worth noting. Twenty plus years after an event, "estimation" and "more unbiased estimation" are amusing terms.

So in conclusion, the actual mortality rate for SARS CoV2 calculates as 0.0836 percent. The inverse, the rate of survival, is 99.916 percent.

In a world of almost 8,000,000,000 people, one can refer to a 2002-2004 putbreak and estimates of perhap 1,000 deaths, and quake in one boots. Or not. Because fear is a choice.

The important numbers are CFR and R0 (R-naught*), not deaths compared to world population, when one is predicting the impact of an emergent disease. How deadly is it if contracted, and how easily and quickly does it spread?

SARS-1 had a much higher fatality rate, but a lower R0 than SARS-Cov-2. SARS-1 was spread via respiratory droplet, whereas SARS-Cov-2 was truly airborne (aerosolized), hence Covid’s higher R0. For some time, it was thought that, like SARS1, it was only spread via droplet, but as it turned out, not so. This is why social distancing was useless — although it could theoretically lessen the initial viral load in some cases, I suppose.

SARS1 was more easily contained. Partly because of quick response/quarantine. And it was easier to contain thanks to lower R0. And it mutated itself away at an astonishing rate. Thank goodness. Covid was already wildly out of control by the time the Chinese had to admit to the outbreak, so early containment as with SARS1 was out the window. And we all know the rest of the story.

*See: https://globalhealth.harvard.edu/understanding-predictions-what-is-r-naught/

PS: You do realize any old bum can edit Wikipedia, including you and me and AOC, right? But if you want to go by some Chinese guy’s outdated numbers, fine.

Thanks again. You've shown your true views.

WIKI bad, WHO good, UM reporting on WHO even better, though estimations are estimations are estimations. Revised estimations, well that's another better than....

--- "How deadly is it if contracted, and how easily and quickly does it spread?"

Well, the numbers tell you that answer. SARS CoV and MERS were NOT quickly nor easily spread, with but about a thousand deaths worldwide. So your "important numbers" weren't important after all. Not in those cases.

--- "But if you want to go by some Chinese guy's outdated numbers, fine."

Generally I use Johns Hopkins and US gov census numbers, so I've simply chosen some different "old bums."

Just how many deaths came from SARS CoV1 and MERS worldwide? Choose any source you like. I will accept the number of deaths from your source.

It appears you, sir, are showing your true colors. You trust Wiki, I don’t for most things. John Hopkins is fine by me.

Again, the total number of deaths worldwide vs world population has nothing to with how deadly or dangerous or contagious a disease is.

Pretend for a moment you are living in a real life comic book movie, and Dr. Evil gives you a choice between:

1. Spraying SARS1 in the faces of everyone in your neighborhood. Quarantine and warnings to the outside world are allowed.

2. Fogging your entire neighborhood with the original SARS-Cov-2 virus (and here, also pretend it is a brand new virus and no one has immunity, but Dr. Evil has provided you the actual CFR and R0). No quarantine or warnings to the outside world allowed for 30 days.

3. Innoculating every 10th person in your neighborhood with Ebola, and providing hazmat suits to all the other residents. Quarantine and warnings to the outside world are allowed.

Further pretend that you are 100% altruistic, and your goal is the least number of worldwide deaths. Which do you choose?

If you choose #1, somewhere between 11% and 20% of your neighbours will die, but further spread blocked.

If you choose #2, millions worldwide could well die.

If you choose #3, and you all wear the hazmat suits and observe strict protocols when interacting with the sick and handling their bodies, between 2.5% and 9% of your neighbors will die, depending on the strain Dr. Evil chooses. Further spread will be blocked.

So, which are you going to pick? Or are you going to compare total deaths from each disease to world population (which would be silly)?

The response to the SARS1 outbreak was rapid and efficient, and its mutation rate mercifully swift. When it came to Covid-19, the Chinese hid the problem until it was out of control and had already spread to other countries.

In the case of Covid-19, at first it was thought that it was less deadly than SARS1 (but more deadly than it actually was) and more contagious than SARS1 (but less contagious than it actually was). Based on the information available at the time, these were reasonable assumptions. They turned out to be wrong, but they were reasonable.

When it became clear that Covid was not as deadly, and that lockdowns did not work, they should have lifted the lockdowns, but protected the vulnerable (elderly, diabetics, etc.). Instead, they kept on keeping on with the lockdowns, which caused great harm in terms of both human suffering and economic damage.

Compare Covid-19 waves to the 1918 Inluenza waves:

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/1918-commemoration/three-waves.htm

http://cdn.statcdn.com/Infographic/images/normal/22427.jpeg

No, not exactly the same, as worldwide air travel was not common back then as it is now. Three waves, two really nasty ones, then the 1918 flu mutated to what we now call swine flu and live with, although pig flu can be nasty and can kill you, especially if you are elderly and/or have other health conditions.

Covid has had three nasty waves (original strain, then Delta). The first wave is higher than the 1918 flu because of faster spread enabled by faster travel. Now it has mutated to the much milder Omicron variants, which, like swine flu, can be nasty and can even kill you, especially if you are elderly and/or have other health conditions. But we’ll just have to live with it, same as pig flu.

Yes, the 1918 flu was more deadly, and killed about 675,000 Americans (about 0.65% of the total population). According to Johns Hopkins, Covid has killed about 1,079,870 Americans (about 0.33% of the total population). We also have antibiotics, and eventually other effective treatments such as monoclonal antibodies, etc. and vaccines came along. It’s quite likely that without the medical advances since 1918, Covid would have been more deadly with a mortality rate more similar to the 1918 flu.

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/1918-pandemic-h1n1.html

Just a guess here - there probably isn’t a lot of Remdesivir in Africa?

--- "Again, the total number of deaths worldwide vs world population has nothing to with how deadly or dangerous or contagious a disease is."

Clarifying, "total number of deaths" has "nothing to do with...."

Yet, "worldwide deaths" seems the root of and measure for your comic book scenarios. You write "your goal is the least number of worldwide deaths. Which do you choose?"

I choose the least number of deaths. As do you, I am sure. I don't need to posit a "Dr. Evil" nor posit choosing -- as if I were a ruler -- between infecting others with one of Dr. Evil's or your debate-designed fictional options.

Total number of MERS and SAR CoV1 deaths were in the low thousands. So, "total number of deaths" has "nothing to do with...." what?

Johns Hopkins data and the census of the US government data calculate to “a worldwide mortality rate of 0.0836 percent.“ Over these last three years. An annualized rate would be smaller.

The thread on which we comment is titled "Medical ‘experts’ struggle to explain Africa's very low Covid vaccination and death rates." As to deaths, I am rather sure the author of the article and the various health agencies are all speaking about "total deaths."

Deaths which have "...nothing to with how deadly or dangerous or contagious a disease is?" I lose the train of your argument for reference to Dr. Evil and such. It began with the low rate of death in sub-Saharan Africa. I calculate the actual Covid mortality rate worldwide to be 0.0836 percent. That's it.

I was deferring to your concern for worldwide deaths. I think the confusion might lie here: Pelham and I were discussing the *initial* reaction to the Covid outbreak, which in hindsight, appears hysterical. But given what was known at the time, it wasn’t all that unreasonable. You are talking about what we already know now. How many worldwide deaths, etc., with the advantage of hindsight. We are talking about two different things.

In the Dr. Evil example, it’s easy to choose because Dr. Evil gives you parameters that conform to historical facts and supplies you with correct CFR and R0 for Covid.

What if Dr. Evil required that SARS1 be allowed to spread to spread for 30 days, including international air travel, and that all he would divulge about Covid-19 was that it was closely related to SARS1, but appears to have a lower CFR and higher R0? Hmm. Much harder to decide, no?

It’s difficult to know the actual worldwide Covid deaths. China has been lying like a dog. I read a study saying that in some African countries, only about 10% of all deaths (all cause) are reported. This did not surprise me all that much. Anyone who knows the situation in Mali, the train wreck known as CAR, the DRC, etc., would not be surprised. It was some time ago, so I don’t have the link handy, sorry. But it’s common knowledge some countries can’t do proper death records. It’s also clear the CCP official figures are a joke.

There are arguments back and forth about whether Covid deaths are overcounted in some countries, undercounted in others. You seem to like using excess deaths as a measure. I provided a link to how The Economist has calculated excess deaths worldwide in a previous post. Here it is again:

https://web.archive.org/web/20221129004951/https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/coronavirus-excess-deaths-estimates

I gave the figures for the US, according to Johns Hopkins, a source you stated you trust:

“According to Johns Hopkins, Covid has killed about 1,079,870 Americans (about 0.33% of the total population).

--- "Pelham and I were discussing the *initial* reaction to the Covid outbreak, which in hindsight, appears hysterical. But given what was known at the time, it wasn't all that unreasonable."

Lockdowns -- crackdowns, and related goodies from the State -- were, are and will remain "unreasonable."

Quarantining the healthy within national borders was never an "initial" reaction to any infectious disease. Except the political ones, of course.

The "initial reaction" was ginned up by the players, many of which and whom have profited wildly. "Meet The 40 New Billionaires Who Got Rich Fighting Covid-19"

Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/giacomotognini/2021/04/06/meet-the-40-new-billionaires-who-got-rich-fighting-covid-19/?sh=4561ce8d17e5

As to the arch of this recent history and the requirement for a ChiCom styled QR code travel system, one may sample from the last years....

In March 2021, "WHO advises against vaccine passports as EU debates 'green pass' " Source: https://www.euronews.com/2021/03/18/who-advises-against-vaccine-passports-as-eu-debates-green-pass

In December 2021, "All Details on EU COVID-19 Vaccine Passport Revealed: Here's What You Need to Know" Source: https://www.schengenvisainfo.com/news/all-details-on-eu-covid-19-passport-revealed-heres-what-you-need-to-know/

In July 2022, "WHO releases global COVID-19 vaccination strategy update to reach unprotected" Source: https://www.who.int/news/item/22-07-2022-who-releases-global-covid-19-vaccination-strategy-update-to-reach-unprotected

In November 2022, "G20 Leaders Agree to Global Vaccination Passport System: 'Where Will It End?'" Source: https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2022/november/g20-leaders-agree-to-global-vaccination-passport-to-limit-rights-of-travelers-where-will-it-end

I was in Berlin in January 2020 when the Drosten RT-PCR test was coded based on Chinese DATA. (Drosten was connected to the Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin.) I was there when in February the EU Commission adopted the Drosten test, a month BEFORE the pandemic was declared by the WHO. In April 2020, I downloaded the WHO advice for how to "advance" the coding for Covid over other co-morbidities. All in early 2020. Initially known. Suppressed.

"...given what was known at the time, it wasn't all that unreasonable" is an unreasonable assertion, since any information which was "initially known" was constructed to create hysteria. This includes the WHO's guess -- completely without data -- that the mortality rate would be 3.4 percent. It ends up being 0.0836 percent. That is an enormous difference.

"What was known at that time" was that the EU wanted a green pass. Since 2015, according to EU documents. "What was known at that time" was that the one test which the CDC finally jettisoned was a guesstimate rooted on ChiCom data, and ONLY ChiCom data from January 2020. "What was known at that time" was that, first masks were unnecessary and then later necessary and now again unnecessary according to Fauci and his ilk. What was asserted was "two weeks to flatten the curve," and the rest we all know.

You write, "given what was known at the time, it wasn't all that unreasonable. You are talking about what we already know now. How many worldwide deaths, etc., with the advantage of hindsight." There are those of us who saw much of what you say was known only in hindsight. My hindsight -- and a number of others -- is dated from January 2020. Those invested in the pandemic shouted us down then. And continue to shout, as if the narrative must be maintained. Because "green pass" called now a "Global Vaccination Passport System."

Get jabbed or no travel for you, Buddy Boy. Sounds like a mandate to FORCE -- think back on the notion of "informed consent" without real information -- "vaccinations" of still experimental mRNA materials. Don't like the verb, "force/" Okay, "enforce." That's what the game is.

So the mortality rate for SARS CoV2 is at best 0.0836 percent worldwide. And for this, the Western G20 want to force/enforce a "Global Vaccination Passport System." Now it's known. No longer supposition. Fact. You will comply. That's the game, for a meager 0.0836 percent mortality worldwide. Welcome a stab at worldwide health fascism.

The Chinese Communists were in on this at the beginning. They cheered lockdowns. The US Fauci-Collins' advice was for lockdowns, though in a deposition only last week Fauci says he just couldn't recall who was for lockdowns. And the headlines tell of ChiCom lockdowns contemporary to this discussion.

The lockdowns of 2020 were absolutely unreasonable. The Global Vaccination Passport System proposed in 2022 is absolutely unreasonable. Without reference to a fictional Dr. Evil, one will be either for or against the Global Vaccination Passport System. Might I ask which is your choice?

Of course I’m against requiring vaccines and all the rest. I’ve always said I was firmly against vaccine mandates, and of course I still am. I have repeatedly stated the extended lockdowns were wrong and caused great harm.

I can understand the first two weeks of lockdowns, while they scrambled to figure out this new disease and prepare, and they hoped it would “flatten the curve”. I’m sure you disagree on that, but that’s okay.

--- "According to Johns Hopkins, Covid has killed about 1,079,870 Americans (about 0.33% of the total population)."

According to today's data:

( 1,079,870 Covid deaths / 333,326,670 US population ) x 100 = 0.324 percent morality rate over 35 complete months. About one third of that rate when annualized. A third? About 0.11 percent annualized as an estimate without more granularity for the data.

Sources: https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/region/united-states and https://www.census.gov/popclock/

Annual overall mortality rate of 1.027 percent according to the CDC.

Source: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm

--- "I can understand the first two weeks of lockdowns, while they scrambled to figure out this new disease and prepare, and they hoped it would “flatten the curve”. I’m sure you disagree on that, but that’s okay."

Actually no. On this we do not disagree. Everything thereafter was a violation of citizens' rights. Might vene be before.

Then we agree :)

I have no quibble with your #110, either.

All good.

Wish you well.

To all Freepers: Stay away from the mRNA products, all still legally-protected experiments on lab rats called "humans."