Here’s a detailed, point-by-point refutation of Ian Miller’s article based on the actual study and broader scientific understanding.
- The Claim That COVID Mortality Risk Was “Nearly Nonexistent”
What the Article Says:
“All of it stems from the assertion that COVID was a uniquely, extremely lethal virus. We knew long ago that The Experts were wrong about the mortality rate. And now we have more proof that their misleading estimates, which led to a complete societal breakdown, were absurdly, catastrophically inaccurate.”
Why This Is Misleading:
The article implies that early mortality estimates were deliberately exaggerated to justify restrictions. However, early in the pandemic, there was significant uncertainty about the true infection fatality rate (IFR) due to undetected asymptomatic cases and limited testing.
The 3.4% case fatality rate (CFR) initially cited by the WHO was based on confirmed cases at the time, not an estimate of the IFR. Later studies, including those by Ioannidis, refined IFR estimates as more data became available.
The study does not claim that COVID was “nearly nonexistent” as a mortality risk. It clearly shows high mortality among older adults, particularly those in nursing homes.
Context Matters:
The highest-risk groups were indeed at extreme risk, with 7.88% CFR among those 85+ and even higher in nursing homes (7.92%).
The public health response was based on the available data at the time, not hindsight. The precautionary principle dictated that societies take stronger measures until better data emerged.
- The Claim That COVID Mortality Rate Was “Always Exaggerated”
What the Article Says:
“A new study out from a team of researchers including Stanford’s John Ioannidis and Tracy Beth Hoeg examined the infection fatality rate in Austria, a country known for its pandemic extremism. And what do you know, turns out all those ridiculous policies and mandates were never justified.”
Why This Is Misleading:
The article conflates the Austrian study’s findings with policy justification, ignoring the actual reason restrictions were implemented.
Early COVID variants (pre-Omicron) had significantly higher IFRs than later variants. This study found higher CFRs in early 2021 before the Omicron wave.
The study itself states that immunization (natural or vaccine-induced) played a major role in reducing mortality.
Cherry-Picking Data:
The 0.31% CFR is an average over the entire pandemic—not reflective of the actual higher rates in early 2020 and 2021 before widespread immunity.
Mortality was high before vaccination and lower after, yet the article ignores this and instead claims that restrictions “were never justified.”
- The Claim That “Get Detected COVID Again in January 2022? Your Odds of Survival Were 99.93%” Means Restrictions Were Unnecessary
What the Article Says:
“By January 2022, when nearly everyone had been infected already, leading to increased natural immunity, and milder variants were more common, the detected case fatality rate was just 0.07 percent.”
Why This Is Misleading:
By January 2022, vaccines and prior infection had already dramatically reduced fatality rates. The article ignores the impact of vaccines, pretending that COVID was always mild.
The early waves had significantly higher fatality rates. The study found IFRs peaked in 2020 and declined over time, largely due to immunity.
Long COVID was still a risk, even for those who survived. Fatality is not the only relevant measure of harm.
Deceptive Framing:
The article implies that COVID was never dangerous based on 2022 data—ignoring that restrictions were enacted in 2020-2021, when mortality was much higher.
- The Claim That “The Great Barrington Declaration Was Right” and That Public Health Experts Suppressed It Unjustly
What the Article Says:
“This is exactly what the Great Barrington Declaration said as COVID extremism ran rampant in 2020. Protect the vulnerable, those in nursing homes and in higher-risk age groups, while acknowledging that younger people were at little-to-no risk.”
Why This Is Misleading:
The Great Barrington Declaration (GBD) proposed focused protection, assuming that only high-risk individuals needed to take precautions. However, this ignored major problems:
Uncontrolled spread risks overwhelming healthcare systems. Even with low IFRs for younger people, hospitalization rates were high, filling ICU beds.
Long COVID affects younger people too.
Protecting the vulnerable without broader public health measures proved nearly impossible. Many nursing home outbreaks happened due to community spread.
The study does not support the idea that GBD was the correct approach—it just confirms that mortality varied by age, which was already well-known.
- The Claim That “Vaccine Discrimination Was Scientifically Inaccurate” Because Natural Immunity Had a Lower Fatality Rate Than Vaccination
What the Article Says:
“Even more frustrating is that, while not definitive, the mortality rate for those with prior documented infections was just 0.03 percent, while it was 0.16 percent for those with prior vaccination.”
Why This Is Misleading:
The vaccinated group was older and sicker than the naturally infected group. This study does not compare like-for-like populations.
The study does not conclude that natural immunity was better than vaccination. It simply observes the data and acknowledges possible explanations, including the healthy vaccinee effect (healthier individuals choosing vaccination).
Vaccines reduced severe outcomes and deaths before widespread natural immunity existed. The article ignores that early waves saw far higher CFRs before vaccines were available.
- The Claim That “Restrictions Were Based on Lies” and That Public Health Experts “Refuse to Admit They Were Wrong”
What the Article Says:
“This study serves as yet another reminder of the stupidity of our ruling elites and their mouth-breathing devotion to listening to themselves, and only themselves.”
Why This Is Misleading:
Scientists updated their guidance as more data emerged. Early in the pandemic, with no prior knowledge of SARS-CoV-2, precautionary measures were reasonable.
Countries that did not implement restrictions (e.g., Sweden) saw higher early mortality rates compared to their peers. Sweden’s IFR was initially much higher before vaccines and natural immunity.
Public health guidance was not static. Masking guidance changed when evidence evolved. Vaccination strategies adapted to new variants.
The study does not conclude that restrictions were “based on lies”—it simply documents how mortality changed over time.
Final Verdict
What the Study Actually Shows:
✅ COVID-19 was most lethal to the elderly and nursing home residents. ✅ Mortality declined over time due to immunity (both natural and vaccine-induced), improved treatments, and variant evolution. ✅ Early IFRs were much higher than later IFRs, justifying early caution. ✅ Austria’s high testing rate provided robust data, but testing limitations remain.
What the Article Gets Wrong:
❌ It misrepresents early mortality estimates, ignoring data limitations in 2020. ❌ It cherry-picks later pandemic data to argue that COVID was always mild. ❌ It misrepresents natural immunity vs. vaccination data, ignoring age/risk differences. ❌ It falsely claims public health measures were unnecessary by ignoring early waves. ❌ It uses inflammatory language and political attacks, undermining scientific discussion.
This article twists legitimate findings to fit a predetermined anti-public health narrative. The Austrian study provides important insights, but it does not justify calling the entire pandemic response unjustified.
Oh look, a conservative spreading misinformation about shit they don’t understand
i guess everyone who died from covid is lying?
Have 3 people in that condition first hand known by me.
An average mortality rate of Covid infections was .31%. Even if I buy these numbers, that is one in 300, monthly, for millions of people.
Covid deaths saved Social Security over $200 billion alone. So only a hundred years of everything Elon has done to break things.
