"Facts about COVID-19": Swiss Propaganda Research Article

[pamojja]

This is why the German death rate figures are considered accurate, because the Germans did an excellent job of testing everyone who might have been infected.

Well, the German reality out of the perspective of a pathologists:

Germany: The German Robert Koch Institute now advises against autopsies of test-positive deceased persons because the risk of droplet infection by aerosols is allegedly too high. In many cases, this means that the real cause of death can no longer be determined.

A specialist in pathology comments on this as follows: „Who might think evil of it! Up to now, it has been a matter of course for pathologists to carry out autopsies with appropriate safety precautions even in the case of infectious diseases such as HIV/AIDS, hepatitis, tuberculosis, PRION diseases, etc. It is quite remarkable that in a disease that is killing thousands of patients all over the world and bringing the economy of entire countries to a virtual standstill, only very few autopsy findings are available (six patients from China). From the point of view of both the epidemic police and the scientific community, there should be a particularly high level of public interest in autopsy findings. However, the opposite is the case. Are you afraid of finding out the true causes of death of the positively tested deceased? Could it be that the numbers of corona deaths would then melt away like snow in the spring sun?“

 

[Hip]

Well, the German reality out of the perspective of a pathologists:

It's not relevant what changes in testing policy the Germans have now decided upon. We already have an accurate figure for the death rate based on the early phase of German testing.

 

[pamojja]

Again, German too only test those coming to hospital care, not those without symptoms or told to stay home. We simply don't know the number of infected. Therefore any estimate of CFR is only based on modeling.

 

[Hip]

Again, German too only test those coming to hospital care, not those without symptoms or told to stay home. We simply don't know the number of infected. Therefore any estimate of CFR is only based on modeling.

That is wrong: initially the Germans were testing everyone.


This is what actually happened in Germany:

initially, at least, the country’s health authorities tracked infection clusters meticulously. When an individual tested positive, they used contact tracing to find other people with whom they had been in touch and then tested and quarantined them, which broke infection chains.

In Italy, 9.5 percent of the people who have tested positive for the virus have succumbed to covid-19, according to data compiled at the Johns Hopkins University. In France, the rate is 4.3 percent. But in Germany, it’s 0.4 percent.

The biggest reason for the difference, infectious disease experts say, is Germany’s work in the early days of its outbreak to track, test and contain infection clusters. That means Germany has a truer picture of the size of its outbreak than places that test only the obviously symptomatic, most seriously ill or highest-risk patients.

And here

Experts have suggested that Germany is simply testing more people for the virus, meaning the country has a much more accurate picture of its total number of infections which would mean the death rate is lower.
...
German government policy is to 'do everything to find, isolate, test and treat every case' and 'locate every contact person'.

 

[andyguitar]

In the UK we dont know how many have died from it ,only that a certain number had covid at the time of death. Or at least that's what I thought was true....... Truth is we dont even know that, as a Doctor who signs the death certificate can put covid on the certificate if he THINKS covid was a factor. Yes no test is required, just an opinion. Crazy.

 

[Hip]

Truth is we dont even know that, as a Doctor who signs the death certificate can put covid on the certificate if he THINKS covid was a factor. Yes no test is required, just an opinion. Crazy.

Death from coronavirus is a particularly unpleasant thing to watch, but it is quite characteristic. It involves the patient desperately trying to get air into their lungs, but failing.

This is how an NHS doctor describes those dying of coronavirus:

Have you ever seen someone gasping for their last breaths? Not many have, but for those who have experienced it, you never forget the horror. I wish I could forget all the faces of the dying I saw last week.

The look of panic across every face, the chugging sound people make as they desperately try, and fail, to get oxygen in their lungs. It doesn't leave you.

I have been a doctor for more than a decade. In that time, I thought I had seen everything there was to see. But nothing could have prepared me for the terror that coronavirus would unleash.

Source: here

 

[pamojja]

That is wrong: initially the Germans were testing everyone.

Could not be further from the truth. Dr. Drosten is one of the team developing the initial PCR test, and since gives almost daily podcastss on NDR (North German Broadcast). Here todays comment about ongoing testing (translated by deepl.com):

More tests currently not so easily feasible

Currently, between 500,000 and 700,000 tests are carried out in Germany every week. Why not more? There is a simple reason, as virologist Drosten explained: "Despite existing testing capacities in terms of personnel and machines, certain reagents that laboratories naturally need and have to procure for tests are no longer supplied.

What many people do not know: The international allocation of essential reagents to the various countries has long been a political issue. In other words, politicians often decide which countries are to be supplied and in what quantities. "We order stock for two weeks and then only receive one delivery for three days," revealed Drosten. For him, however, it is in any case more important to test where it is particularly necessary - in hospitals, for example.

 

[andyguitar]

Ah a slight misunderstanding @pamojja. I think @Hip ment they are testing everyone the infected person came into contact with, not everyone (the whole population)

 

[Hip]

Ah a slight misunderstanding @pamojja. I think @Hip ment they are testing everyone the infected person came into contact with, not everyone (the whole population)

That's right, in the early stages of the pandemic in Germany, the Germany really went out their way to test everyone who was connected to a coronavirus case. In that way, you find nearly everyone who is infected in that person's social network.

Later on, the Germans stopped being so thorough in their testing. But at the initial stage of the German pandemic, they were amazingly thorough. And so their death rate figure from that early stage is considered accurate.

 

[pamojja]

And so their death rate figure from that early stage is considered accurate.

There are many experts who would disagree. For example this not yet peer-reviewed paper estimates Germany only gets it at around 42%. But as we all know, with the current state of knowledge these are all models and not facts.
https://cmmid.github.io/topics/covid19/severity/global_cfr_estimates.html

 

[Hip]

There are many experts who would disagree. For example this not yet peer-reviewed paper estimates Germany only gets it at around 42%. But as we all know, with the current state of knowledge these are all models and not facts.
https://cmmid.github.io/topics/covid19/severity/global_cfr_estimates.html

That study is looking at the case fatality ratio (CFR), but we are interested in the infection fatality ratio (IFR). So the study does not apply.

 

[pamojja]

It applies inasfar to both are based on modeling and not secure data, untill it is verified with Antibody testing in a representative enough sample of the population.

 

[Hip]

It applies inasfar to both are based on modeling and not secure data, untill it is verified with Antibody testing in a representative enough sample of the population.

It does not apply. Case fatality ratio is the percentage of deaths in those with symptoms. We are not interested in this. We want the infection fatality ratio, the percentage of deaths in those who are infected (that includes both those with symptoms and those who are asymptomatic).

 

[pamojja]

Which at this point isn't known.

 

[Hip]

Which at this point isn't known.

This discussion is going around in circles.

As I have said already, the infection fatality ratio (IFR) was accurately measured by the Germans in the early days of their pandemic. The IFR was also determined accurately on the Diamond Princes, and then age-adjusted.

 

[pamojja]

And many experts disagree with your believes.

 

[percyval577]

That is wrong: initially the Germans were testing everyone.

No, only who had some chance to be positive was tested. It may be through having been in contact with someone positive (who must be known, so clearly not everyone), or may it be through symptoms.

It was stated that you are suspected to possibly have it when both applies

• having respiratory symptoms of any degree
• having been in contact with a known positive person

So still this is not representative, though for sure will give much better an idea than the results from the Italian tests, e.g. But the number should be still higher than the results will say. Reason for the whole procedure was clearly simply to act. They even didn´t know how many tests they have done, so it was even not possible to calculate the negatives!


Like in Italy, every death tested positive counts as a "corona death". If this is adequate has been thrown into doubt, of course. A better fatality can only be estimated by forensic or statistics, the first one is difficult, the other one possible only from hindsight.

Estimation of some experts range from 4% till 15% of the population being infected, though it is of course pure speculation.

 

[percyval577]

It does not apply. Case fatality ratio is the percentage of deaths in those with symptoms. We are not interested in this. We want the infection fatality ratio, the percentage of deaths in those who are infected (that includes both those with symptoms and those who are asymptomatic).

As case was counted everyone who has been tested positive. Symptoms are not required.

The infectious rate is generally per definition an unknown, though might be assessable.


(I found it not the most logical words-approach relation.)

 

[percyval577]

I think the best estimation (until reliable antibody tests will be done) is to look at clusters, and they may in fact announce that not so many are infected.

Although clusters, e.g. in residences (with a high mortality), might occur - I do reason - because of a high viral loads at first infectious events. I am only afraid that this might be not true.

 

[Hip]

And many experts disagree with your believes.

There are all sorts of figures given for the death rate, and all disagreement among the experts. The WHO stated the global death rate is 3.4%, which other experts claimed was likely an overestimate. I have even seen studies claiming the SARS-CoV-2 death rate is as high as 15%.

This is why it is important to look at how data was gathered, and examine how thoroughly people were trying to tract down all the infected people, even the asymptomatic ones. Germany seemed to have the most thorough approach (in the early days), which is why their data inspires more confidence.

However, the death rate is not just dependent on the data gathering thoroughness; it may also depend on factors like whether there are lots of elderly people in a given population.

As case was counted everyone who has been tested positive. Symptoms are not required.

The case fatality ratio refers to the percentage of people with a given disease who die of that disease. In this instance, the disease is COVID-19, so you have to have the symptoms of COVID-19 in order to be a case.