You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

1
-1

[–] 24723487? 1 point -1 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.

0
0

[–] 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.

1
-1

[–] 24727969? 1 point -1 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.