Below is a calculator. Take a period in your head and fill in:
- How many corona deaths have there been in a certain period, e.g. since the beginning of 2021?
- What was the IFR of the disease at the time? (somewhere between 0.05% and 0.3%, e.g. 0.15%)
- What percentage of the population has been vaccinated? (RIVM says approx. 80%)
- How high is the effectiveness of the vaccine? (The leaflet said 95%)
How does that fit in with the number of infections? How many infections or infections were needed in terms of communicated mortality, vaccine effectiveness, vaccination coverage and numbers of Covid deaths? See the default values below. You can adjust them yourself and see what you end up with.
For example, if you want to view 2020, set the vaccination rate to 0.
The Dutch population is 17,440,000 people. Compare that to the total number of infected people needed to arrive at the corona death toll.
This is not possible with the default values. Which value are you going to adjust?
- The IFR can be increased.
Then you need fewer infected. But that is no longer consistent with hospital admissions, PCR tests, sewage water estimates, other measurements and various international meta-studies. - The VE can be lowered.
Then you need fewer vaccinated infected. However, the vaccines work considerably worse than promised. It is a possibility, but that is not in line with the official optimistic studies nor with the statements of various Disinformation Thinktankers. - The death toll can be reduced. That would then mean that (far) too many deaths have been attributed to Covid-19. So I died "with" instead of "From" corona. So where do we get alternative causes of death?
Well, they can be found. Other causes of death are available in:- diseases that score lower than trends would lead us to expect*, or in the case of
- Effects of the mismanagement (the "interventions"):
- non-medical: lockdowns, antisocialization with face masks, splash guards and other misleading safety rituals
- medical:
- Vaccinations
- banning medicines
- Intubations (applicable in 2020 only)
In any case, we are entering the area of mismanagement. Either manipulating the numbers, or choosing the wrong advisors, or simply not wanting solutions to work in place. Or at least outrageously ill-informed advisors. And then come up with the same toolbox to be prepared for the umpteenth made-up doomsday scenario... Inconceivable. Is the CTB really such an enticing toy?
* Shifting categories of causes of death we have seen before in Covid-19-is-not-cause-of-death-no-1.
Without humor, you won't survive the craziness.
This is Kafka's 4th dimension. A knitting that is constantly evolving. And, I hope, gets caught up in his own tricks. And with Einstein: Logic is the shortest way from A to B and imagination to creation and fantasy
Something crazy is happening here I suspect. We calculate the IFR by dividing the number of deaths by the number of infections. We then put that data into a calculation tool and come to the conclusion that with a VE of 95% and a vaccination rate of 80%, there should have been 27,000,000 infected people and there are not that many inhabitants in NL.
But what if the number of infected people is overestimated by the PCR test? This can be done on arithmetical grounds (the pos. predictive value at low prevalence is low) and on biological grounds (CT value too high, is the probe unique to the corona genome, is a pos. result evidence of infection). In that case, we underestimate the IFR, and it could actually be higher and then the number of infections is correct again.
A higher IFR would not be consistent with hospital admissions, but these are also based on the same PCR test. (And not with sewage estimates, I can't argue with that so quickly).
Couldn't that be a pit fall?
Well, who knows... I'm having a hard time finding a real set of numbers. In any case, the values communicated do not seem consistent. My impression is that at least the number of corona deaths can be reduced. And that certainly has to do with interpreting PCR tests.
Great Egied! So that's the hidden joke. Sad but true.
No, I was mistaken.
The deaths are (for the most part) also diagnosed with that PCR test. So the IFR does not change, even though the PCR test overestimates the number of infections, it also overestimates the number of deaths, proportionally I expect, the quotient of those two remains the same.
So that cannot explain the discrepancy.
Dear Anton,
I have a request:
Could you also make this calculation tool in such a way that you can calculate backwards?
So, for example, by first entering the (total) number of vaccinated and unvaccinated people (and then also the other variables in such a way that you can see what comes out of each of those variables)?
Conversely, you can also use the (claimed) figures of vaccinated people using other variables (whether or not more or less known by now) to calculate, for example, vaccine effectiveness.
I know you're busy, but anyway, thank you for all the effort you're taking. 🙂
Mvg, Arnoud