Posted by: 3922244?
Posting time: 5 months ago on
Last edit time: 5 months ago on
Archived on: 10/11/2020 10:00:00 AM
Views: 450
SCP: 54
57 upvotes, 3 downvotes (95% upvoted it)
~91 user(s) here now
Subverse anonymized: usernames are hidden and votes don't count.
NSFW: Yes
Authorized: No
Anon: Yes
Private: No
Type: Default
view the rest of the comments →
[–] 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.
[–] 24728700? ago (edited ago)
And like I said you cant do math and neither can they, they are doing fatality rates against total population.
No disease sickness or cause of death is done that way except maybe traffic/vehicle related deaths. The mortality rate for stroke isn't calculated by the entire population divided by people who died of stroke. We look at how many strokes there were and how many people died of strokes and that is how we determine the percentages for fatality.
You are incompetent if you think total population numbers have anything to do with mortality rates.
[–] 24728739? 1 point -1 points 0 points (+0|-1) ago
Riiiiiight. I see that you're a bloody moron, no need to talk to you any further.