Peter C Gøtzsche (@PGtzsche1) wrote the article below
He argues that COVID-19 isn't very lethal, + then draws some political conclusions.
The article is poor.
"Is the infection fatality rate for COVID-19 worse than that for influenza?" bmj.com/content/371/bm…
2/P
Gøtzsche's basic idea is:
The proportion of SARS-CoV-2-infected people who die of the disease COVID-19 is comparable to that of flu; i.e. the infection fatality rate (IFR) for COVID-19 is not an order of magnitude larger than that of the flu.
Gøtzsche is wrong. Study after study shows that the fatality rate for SARS-CoV-2 is about an order of magnitude larger than that of influenza; COVID-19 is way more dangerous than the flu.
Gøtzsche then cites his book to say the CDC may be unreliable on influenza's IFR.
But the CDC doesn't give an influenza IFR. They give a case fatality rate (CFR), where reported cases are limited to symptomatic illnesses cdc.gov/flu/about/burd…
See:
7/P
Influenza IFR can be calculated from the CFR, yielding an IFR of <0.1%. That extends beyond the CDC.
Gøtzsche goes on to compare *CFRs* from other pathogens to the *IFR* of SARS-CoV-2. That's misleading since IFR is less than, or equal to, CFR. In fact, IFR is almost always less than CFR, since CFR misses some infections.
Gøtzsche cites a blood donor research to claim a SARS-CoV-2 IFR of 0.16%. That's:
- cherry-picking
- using a type of study that under-estimates IFR for multiple reasons
- citing a source that doesn't give an IFR
- the research implies a larger IFR
One plausible explanation is that Gøtzsche's ideological opposition to some policy responses to COVID-19, pushed him to contrarianism on COVID-19. His contrarian tendencies appeared before, just as with John Ioannidis:
So the COVID-19 pandemic brought out ideologically-motivated contrarianism and denialism, just like the AIDS pandemic, anthropogenic climate change, vaccination, GMOs, etc. did.
So the test correction based on FINDDx increases the Gangelt IFR by ~4, and/or renders Gangelt less relevant since corrected seroprevalence overlaps with 0%.
There are other cases in which using FINDDx decreases IFR. For example:
Based on the above paper's FINDDx-based analysis, some of the worse offenders in terms of sensitivity (i.e. false negatives) at particular times post-infection are:
Sweden did not lockdown in response to COVID-19. Many politically-motivated COVID-19 contrarians try to support Sweden's policy by making misleading comparisons between Sweden + other countries. This thread will address that.
A lot of COVID-19 contrarians abuse the idea of "cross-reactivity" to make SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19) look less dangerous than it really is. Many of them do this to avoid policies they dislike, like lockdowns.
Immune cells known as T cells and B cells have receptors that recognize viruses.
Think of the receptors as a lock, + portions of the virus as a key; i.e. the lock (receptor) binds to a specific key (virus region), + not to other keys
Even if you've never been infected with a virus, bacteria, etc., you almost certainly have T + B cells that recognize it.
When you're first infected, those cells (especially B cells) take a few days to increase in number (and activity) + generate their full immune response.
Interesting method from @GidMK and co-authors for calculating IFR from PCR-based cases.
(IFR is the proportion of SARS-CoV-2-infected people who die COVID-19;
PCR measures viral genetic material in people;
Cases are people who were infected)
The basic idea is that some countries had relatively few infected, and tested with PCR so thoroughly, that their PCR testing got a relatively large proportion of infected people.
Their method yields a range of IFR values consistent with those from serology [i.e. antibody testing], which provides independent validation for their method.
green: their PCR-based methods
blue: Serology-based estimates