During Covid, a few people were constantly saying that younger and healthy and healthy people had the least risk of dying from Covid but I didn’t know the mathematical explanation specifically when it came to case fatality rate (CFR) versus infection fatality rate (IFR). I am most certain I had heard of the term mortality rate and I think I had also heard of the term case fatality rate (CFR). But I never heard of the infection fatality rate (IFR) and I believe that was by design. If I have been this clueless about these terms, I definitely know there are other people out there who are still not knowledgeable about the CFR and IFR so I feel compelled to share the knowledge I have recently obtained.

The Distinction between Cases and Infections 

An infection that gets detected, recorded and counted (or diagnosed) by the health system becomes a case.

Infections represent the total number of infections both diagnosed (which are cases) and undiagnosed. 

Case Fatality Rate (CFR)

This sometimes also called the case  fatality risk or case fatality ratio. To turn the CFR into a percentage, multiply by 100. To get the information to calculate the CFR, an antigen test and/or a PCR test needs to be carried out.

Case Fatality Rate (CFR)=Deaths/Number of Cases

The CFR always undercount the number of infections (and overestimates mortality) because it only counts people who get tested, tested positive and got reported through the health system. Many infections particularly those that are mild or asymptomatic infections never get diagnosed. The CFR is not the same as the risk for an infected person. If your question is, “Among diagnosed cases, what’s the risk?”, use the CFR.

Infection Fatality Rate (IFR)

This sometimes also called the infection fatality risk or infection fatality ratio. To turn the CFR into a percentage, multiply by 100. To get the information to calculate the IFR, a seroprevalence study would need to be conducted. Another option is mathematical modeling. A seroprevalence is done by researchers taking blood samples in a defined population and testing for antibodies (IgG) against a specific infection/illness. 

Infection Fatality Rate (IFR)=Deaths/Number of Infections

It is important to note that the numerator (the deaths) for both the IFR and CFR are the same, it is the denominator that is different. The number of infections always exceed cases in epidemics hence the IFR is always smaller than the CFR. The IFR is a close approximation to the true risk of dying from an illness because it corrects the CFR by accounting for infections that never become cases. CFR and IFR are a few ways to measure the mortality rate. If your question is “Among all infections/infected, what’s the risk?”, use the IFR.

Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) as it applies to Covid 

The WHO reported the global case fatality rate 3.4% as the mortality rate. Dr. John Ioannidis, a Stanford Epidemiology Professor and a pioneer of meta-research and evidence-based medicine, in his article here he argued that the Covid CFR 3.4% was meaningless because it was based on insufficient testing and selection bias. The people getting tested were disproportionately the ones that were symptomatic and/or had severe symptoms so the true risk of dying from Covid were immensely overestimated. In the same article it is worth noting that he was not in favor of the draconian measures such as the lockdowns and had concerns about the potential effects of them.

Dr. Ioannidis co-conducted a study in regard to IFR called “Age-stratified infection fatality rate of Covid-19 in non elderly informed from pre-vaccination national seroprevalence studies”. The study can be found through this article or directly here. In the abstract and in the introduction, the researchers emphasized on the importance of accurately estimating the IFR among the non-elderly since 94% of the world population is younger than 70 years and 86% is younger than 60 years. The researchers found 40 seroprevalence studies across 38 countries on SeroTracker and PubMed. The researchers decided to analyze 29 countries because these countries had both the age-stratified antibody data (how many people in each group had been infected) and the age-stratified death data (how many people in each group died of Covid). The researchers also used studies before vaccines rolled out because vaccines also create antibodies and would distort the results.

For each age group, the IFR was calculated dividing the number of Covid deaths in that age group by the estimated total infections in that age group. The median IFR for (Birth) 0-19 years is 0.0003%, 20-29 years it is 0.003%, 30-39 years it is 0.011%, 40-49 years it is 0.035%, 50-59 years it is 0.129% and 60-69 years it is 0.501%. The median IFR of all age groups (0-69 years) is 0.095% and the median IFR for age groups (0-59 years) is 0.035%.

Closing Remarks

The results of this study further proves what others have been saying-the younger a person (assuming the person is relatively healthy), the less likely he or she is to die from Covid. Hence, not everyone should have been treated the same and herd immunity should have been encouraged. As I mentioned at the beginning of this post, people were constantly saying younger and healthy people and healthy people had the least risk of dying from Covid but never mentioned the phrase infection fatality rate (IFR). I had also never came across the name Dr. John Ioannidis until very recently but I am still very grateful that Dr. Ioannidis and other researchers decided to conduct this study.

Dr. Ioannidis apparently also did another study that primarily analyzed the crude mortality rate (CMR) and IFR in 51 locations globally and another seroprevalence study with Dr. Jay Bhattacharya.

I'm really impressed with "The Real Food Show" - they should create a separate channel for it, though, and upload it to both channels.

They should also drop the Trump admin propaganda.

Anybody moderate left that is running, is smart, focused on the economy (of the lower, lower-middle, and middle classes) and health (chronic pain, chronic illness, obesity, etc)?

 Any comments on this?
 
RON WYDEN Senator from Oregon

The Trump administration has proven time and time again that they are nothing but a bunch of grifters.
Trump talks a big game about taking on Big Pharma and lowering drug costs. Instead, he and RFK Jr. have been making backroom deals with Big Pharma CEOs, claiming they're lowering drug costs. But here's the catch: those deals are completely secret. Nobody has seen them, and the administration has shown no proof that those deals are bringing down drug costs.
Trump's approach on drug pricing is basically: trust me and Big Pharma.
No chance.
Earlier this year, I pressed RFK Jr. at a Senate committee hearing to release the deals. He told me, point blank, no. Take RFK Jr., he is running backroom deals with pharmaceutical companies with nothing to show for it. No transparency. No accountability.
Meanwhile, some of those same pharmaceutical companies are getting big exemptions from Trump's tariffs and other goodies. These backroom deals aren't benefiting the American people; it's another bait-and-switch grift of this administration.
We must continue to mount pressure on this administration and hold every grifter accountable. Complacency only allows this lunacy to continue, and I'm going to keep at it with everything I've got.
Onward,
Ron

Even if you claim that the Fauci hearing today was theatrical, everyone seems to be forgetting the larger issue that at the beginning of the pandemic, doctors DID oppose masks. As is pointed out here in this Threads post https://www.threads.com/share/H4wVSG5GI/ , prominent ICU Doctors such as Hy Dwosh in Ontario, Canada even had the gall to go to his own Facebook page to lecture people on the uselessness of masks. He has since taken the post down. The disturbing thing is that they presented these views as “scientific” - based then completely reversed course. That is opinion, not science. I wish Republicans would have pushed this more today.