[–] 24723487? 1 point -1 points 0 points (+0|-1) ago
Wait, you're providing a bogus figure of 4.5%, citing that my claims of 0.27% and the sources in which they came, CDC, US Department of Defense, Stanford University and you can't be bothered to even do that while trying to justify your stupid 4.5% quote in the process while providing nothing of substance. Good day to you Shill.
[–] 24725416? ago
You are proving yourself illiterate you have no source for .27% it's complete bunk and your brain is a bowl of shit.
You cant disprove shit.
Here's a little help for your math illiterate ass: https://percentagecalculator.net/
135,000 deaths
is what percent of
3,290,000 infections?
4.1% that's the mortality rate as of today.
This figure will go back up because the new infection wave is only about a week old and it takes about 2 weeks or more to die from covid.
Hopefully even a retarded fuck up like you can understand that math, if not please tell me you are a woman because otherwise I'm putting eugenics back into my political repertoire.
[–] 24727969? 1 point -1 points 0 points (+0|-1) ago (edited ago)
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.13.20101253v2
Results 23 studies were identified with usable data to enter into calculations. Seroprevalence estimates ranged from 0.1% to 47%. Infection fatality rates ranged from 0.02% to 0.86% (median 0.26%) and corrected values ranged from 0.02% to 0.78% (median 0.25%). Among people <70 years old, infection fatality rates ranged from 0.00% to 0.26% with median of 0.05% (corrected, 0.00-0.23% with median of 0.04%). Most studies were done in pandemic epicenters and the few studies done in locations with more modest death burden also suggested lower infection fatality rates.
So as I was saying, 0.27%. You use faulty numbers reported by the media to bolster your argument and then you call me a retarded fuck when it's you that lacks critical thinking skills.