"Total infection fatality rate is estimated to be 0.66% (0.39–1.3). Infection fatality rate is fatality per all infected individuals, regardless of whether they were diagnosed or had any symptoms. Numbers in parentheses are 95% credible intervals for the estimates."
Original source here:
Millions of words have been written on the merit (or lack thereof) of lockdowns. I have a lot of opinions myself, but I'll keep them to myself.
You say that Brazil is out of control, but it's really not. 212 million people, less than 100k active cases, less than 10k considered serious. 12k deaths total. QM gives good advice when he says to look at IFR and not CFR. Many millions of people have had this virus with no symptoms whatsoever, so the actual death rate is much lower than what we hear about in the news.
As for Sweden, their per capita deaths are more than the other Nordics, but 1/2 of Belgium's and it's lower than countries like Spain and the UK, which have broad lockdowns. Testing differences don't have any impact on total deaths.
Testing is not the metric to care about and we have enough REAL data from Sweden's approach to know that the models are unreliable. I'm not trying to be antagonistic, but too many are ignoring the data right in front of them because it doesn't fit with the "gotta be safe at all costs" mantra.
I suggest changing from headache to something else, though it's a bit hard to come up with something that no one seems to be experiencing, there are so many things related to the virus. Maybe hair loss or blurred vision? Haven't heard that either has been identified as related.
Description of this quiz.
I realise 100,000+ dead is less alarming in a country of 300+ million than if it was a country of 50 million, but it's a bit like being thankful that an atomic bomb isn't a hydrogen bomb.
forcing closed businesses, all for your sense of false security. If the death rate was accurately reported, we never would have had these lockdowns.
I don't really pay attention to the news too!