Stanford Epidemiologist John Ioannidis, DSc, M.D.: Odds of Dying From COVID Lower Than Odds of Dying While Driving to Work

PROFESSOR OF MEDICINE (STANFORD PREVENTION RESEARCH), OF EPIDEMIOLOGY AND POPULATION HEALTH AND BY COURTESY, OF STATISTICS AND OF BIOMEDICAL DATA SCIENCE reveals the truth. It’s just a flu, and your odds of dying are greater while driving your car.

[embedyt] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-saAuXaPok&start=86&width=450&height=253[/embedyt]

Video Transcript

00:00
this study aimed to generate an estimate
00:03
of how many people in Santa Clara County
00:06
have been infected with a virus and the
00:09
way to find out is to try to see whether
00:11
they have developed antibodies to SARS
00:14
cough – we realize that the number of
00:18
infected people is somewhere between 50
00:21
and 85 times more compared to what we
00:26
thought compared to what had been
00:27
documented immediately that means that
00:30
the infection fatality rate the chance
00:34
of dying the probability of dying if you
00:37
are infected diminishes by fifty to
00:41
eighty five fold because the denominator
00:44
in the calculation becomes fifty to
00:46
eighty five fold bigger if you take
00:49
these numbers into account they suggest
00:52
that the infection fatality rate for
00:55
this new corona virus is likely to be in
00:58
the same ballpark as seasonal influenza
01:00
of course there is still a little bit of
01:03
uncertainty about the exact number but
01:06
it’s clearly very different compared to
01:09
the original thoughts or speculations or
01:13
preliminary data that suggested a much
01:15
much higher infection fatality rate we
01:18
also try to estimate what is the
01:22
absolute risk if you’re less than 65 and
01:25
we try to compare that against the risk
01:29
of dying if you drive your car over a
01:31
given distance in doing this we try to
01:34
correct for the number of days that the
01:36
pandemic is ongoing so you can get an
01:39
estimate per day in many locations like
01:42
Germany the risk of dying from corona
01:46
virus until when we did the analysis on
01:49
April 4 is in the range of the risk of
01:52
dying driving from home to work or or
01:55
even less if you think that covered 19
02:00
has pretty much the same infection
02:04
fatality rate as let’s say seasonal
02:07
influenza one immediately would argue
02:10
well do we really see this type of
02:13
as we have seen in some epicenters of
02:16
the pandemic like some cities in Italy
02:18
some cities in Spain and several
02:21
locations in the u.s. prominently New
02:24
York City and the New York metropolitan
02:26
area and the answer is that for
02:29
coronavirus we don’t have a vaccine so
02:31
hospitals that are very close to
02:33
capacity like queens for example that
02:36
tends to be a war zone even in
02:38
summertime if you get a very large
02:40
number of people who come to the
02:42
hospital with symptoms they show up at
02:44
the emergency room they wait to be seen
02:48
probably they start infecting each other
02:51
they can infect physicians they can
02:54
infect nurses they can infect personnel
02:56
this means that the the battle moves in
02:59
the most unsuitable battleground
03:02
hospitals are the worst place to to
03:05
fight the war with covered 19 we should
03:09
have done our best to keep people away
03:11
from the hospital if they had covered 19
03:13
symptoms unless they really had very
03:16
severe symptoms and in which case of
03:18
course they needed medical care so it is
03:21
a serious problem no one would deny that
03:23
but it’s clearly not the apocalyptic
03:27
problem that we thought we would face
03:30
early on we have data now that the
03:33
infection fatality rate is much much
03:35
lower compared to our original
03:38
expectations and fears I think that
03:41
there’s no reason to fear we have data
03:43
we have ongoing accumulation of data we
03:46
have eyes on the epidemic and its
03:48
evolution we can be of we should avoid
03:53
panic and and we can take rational steps
03:55
to to deal with the situation and then
03:58
hopefully even open up our society again
04:01
with careful gradual steps Sweden was
04:05
one of the countries that chose a less
04:08
restrictive approach it kept a much of
04:12
its society and of its economy open it
04:14
allowed most schools kindergarten and
04:18
elementary school and middle school to
04:21
be open it kept most shops open and bars
04:25
and restaurant although with some
04:27
modest restrictions it also allowed
04:31
people to get together but not exceed a
04:34
limit of 50 people so in a way it is
04:37
very different compared to the draconian
04:40
measures that were implemented with very
04:43
fierce lockdown measures in other
04:46
countries in Europe and in many places
04:48
in the u.s. they have done fairly well
04:51
and of course it is very difficult to
04:55
compare one country against another
04:56
because you expect to see large
04:58
diversity in infection rates and also in
05:02
death rates maybe you can compare Sweden
05:05
against Switzerland for example that had
05:08
very draconian measures very early on
05:12
and the death rate per million
05:15
population is slightly higher a bit
05:18
higher in Switzerland compared to to
05:20
Sweden until now no evidence so far
05:24
though suggests that Sweden did
05:26
something wrong I think that they seem
05:29
to have fared pretty well they had a
05:32
number of deaths the number of person
05:35
years lost was pretty small because
05:36
almost all of these deaths were in
05:38
people who were very frail and old and
05:40
had very limited life expectancy they
05:43
never came close to seeing their health
05:45
system crash they always had plenty
05:47
plenty of reserves at least until now
05:50
that might change in the future and I’m
05:53
watching that very carefully but I don’t
05:56
think that we can blame the Swedes for
05:58
doing what they did maybe we should
05:59
congratulate them I think that just
06:02
saying that measures worked is is very
06:04
very poor statement it’s it’s an
06:08
overgeneralization and I think that we
06:11
need to scrutinize very carefully which
06:14
one of these measures worked which ones
06:16
did not work and which actually may have
06:18
done some harm in principle I think that
06:22
we should not blame anyone for just
06:25
acting ferociously and aggressively and
06:27
saying shelter-in-place immediately we
06:29
just don’t know what’s going on it was a
06:32
very sound approach but now we can be a
06:34
bit more thorough a bit more exact for
06:38
example we know that suicides go up by
06:41
one
06:41
percent for each 1% increase in
06:44
unemployment and as you know as of now
06:48
we are talking about 25 million people
06:53
filing for unemployment in this country
06:54
and probably almost 10 times that many
06:58
around the world becoming unemployed and
07:00
the number is rapidly increasing as we
07:03
speak we know that there’s huge problems
07:05
with other problems of common diseases
07:09
like cancer and heart attacks they can
07:12
go up or actually the trajectories of
07:15
decrees that we have seen for many of
07:17
these conditions are reversed and
07:19
they’re not decreasing at the same slope
07:21
or actually even increase in situations
07:24
of meltdown but I really worry that
07:27
unless we manage to have a viable plan
07:30
to exit from lock down and shelter in
07:32
place and reopen our world the
07:35
consequences will be far worse than
07:37
coronavirus