Coronavirus Craziness

For philosophical reflections on the COVID-19 pandemic. How can philosophy help us to understand it, to combat it and to survive it?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

FlashDangerpants
Posts: 2908
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Death

Post by FlashDangerpants »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Mon Apr 13, 2020 9:12 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Mon Apr 13, 2020 8:01 am
henry quirk wrote: Mon Apr 13, 2020 3:10 am They will only know the true mortality rate when they have tested a very large cross-section of the population for antibodies since there are probably a lot people who have had it without knowing it. I'm guessing at .1 percent, but it's just a guess, like everyone else is doing-- including the 'experts'.
That will be nice, but there's no strict reason we need an antibody test for that. By current accounting something like 10 to 15% of New York has had the disease, 20% at most. By yours, more or less all of them have had it, so it will go away by itself in the next week or so.
He didn't say that, he was just quoting me. We do need an antibody test for it because it's possible that many people have had the virus without knowing it and they could now have immunity or at least resisitance to the virus therefore there is no reason why they couldn't return to work. There is also a very big difference between something with a .1 percent mortality rate and a 3 percent death rate. It would enable researchers to determine a reasonably accurate mortality rate, allowing govts. to make informed decisions on how to deal with it rather than just guessing and hoping they are doing the right thing.
Sure, but a working, simple, mass producible antibody test has proven to be more difficult to produce than we were hoping.

Long before that test becomes generally available, by the number that Henry has predicted in that quote - where he believes the disease to be 90% less dangerous than the current estimates, he seems by extension to be claiming that many times more people have had the disease than previously estimated. Therefore the heavily hit zones such as NYC must be at herd immunity levels by now.

So Henry's guess will be demonstrated true or false very quickly.

And then we can start dealing with why such an immensely low risk but virulent disease would be killing people in these little hot zones in the way that a less easily transmitted but nastier disease would. But that's for scare-quote 'experts' to worry about.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 9592
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Death

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Mon Apr 13, 2020 9:20 am
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Mon Apr 13, 2020 9:12 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Mon Apr 13, 2020 8:01 am
That will be nice, but there's no strict reason we need an antibody test for that. By current accounting something like 10 to 15% of New York has had the disease, 20% at most. By yours, more or less all of them have had it, so it will go away by itself in the next week or so.
He didn't say that, he was just quoting me. We do need an antibody test for it because it's possible that many people have had the virus without knowing it and they could now have immunity or at least resisitance to the virus therefore there is no reason why they couldn't return to work. There is also a very big difference between something with a .1 percent mortality rate and a 3 percent death rate. It would enable researchers to determine a reasonably accurate mortality rate, allowing govts. to make informed decisions on how to deal with it rather than just guessing and hoping they are doing the right thing.
Sure, but a working, simple, mass producible antibody test has proven to be more difficult to produce than we were hoping.

Long before that test becomes generally available, by the number that Henry has predicted in that quote - where he believes the disease to be 90% less dangerous than the current estimates, he seems by extension to be claiming that many times more people have had the disease than previously estimated. Therefore the heavily hit zones such as NYC must be at herd immunity levels by now.

So Henry's guess will be demonstrated true or false very quickly.

And then we can start dealing with why such an immensely low risk but virulent disease would be killing people in these little hot zones in the way that a less easily transmitted but nastier disease would. But that's for scare-quote 'experts' to worry about.
If you look at the US death rate per million of the population then it's far from being the worst hit. Yanks always get all dramatic and over the top about everything.
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 2908
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Death

Post by FlashDangerpants »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Mon Apr 13, 2020 9:25 am If you look at the US death rate per million of the population then it's far from being the worst hit. Yanks always get all dramatic and over the top about everything.
So what? I said hot zones and I specified NYC. Why are you resorting to numbers designed to ignore the local factor inherent in all disease outbreaks?

The test I specified is wait and see and if Henry's guess is true this will be demonstrated adequately in a hot zone, for which NYC is the best example in America. The exact same applies of course in Lombardy and London as well.
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12314
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Coronavirus Craziness

Post by Arising_uk »

Not sure how it is in the rest of the world but in the UK we are only counting those dying in hospital who test positive and not those at home or in care homes so we think there is large under-reporting going on.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 9592
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Death

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Mon Apr 13, 2020 9:31 am
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Mon Apr 13, 2020 9:25 am If you look at the US death rate per million of the population then it's far from being the worst hit. Yanks always get all dramatic and over the top about everything.
So what? I said hot zones and I specified NYC. Why are you resorting to numbers designed to ignore the local factor inherent in all disease outbreaks?

The test I specified is wait and see and if Henry's guess is true this will be demonstrated adequately in a hot zone, for which NYC is the best example in America. The exact same applies of course in Lombardy and London as well.
Is it really a good example, with people packed in like sardines, poor health care, thousands of homeless and destitute people? Who is dying?
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 2908
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Death

Post by FlashDangerpants »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Mon Apr 13, 2020 9:58 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Mon Apr 13, 2020 9:31 am
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Mon Apr 13, 2020 9:25 am If you look at the US death rate per million of the population then it's far from being the worst hit. Yanks always get all dramatic and over the top about everything.
So what? I said hot zones and I specified NYC. Why are you resorting to numbers designed to ignore the local factor inherent in all disease outbreaks?

The test I specified is wait and see and if Henry's guess is true this will be demonstrated adequately in a hot zone, for which NYC is the best example in America. The exact same applies of course in Lombardy and London as well.
Is it really a good example, with people packed in like sardines, poor health care, thousands of homeless and destitute people? Who is dying?
My maths is notoriously suspect, so please double check my calculations here. But if the disease kills only 0.1% of the people it infects, and 7,000 deaths are recorded to it in NYC, then 7,000 * 1000 = 7 million, and thus I believe 7 million infections must have delivered those 7 thousand deaths. No? In a city of 8.4 million people that means that they will finish their coronavirus problem in another thousand or two deaths. With upwards of 700 per day at the moment, that won't take long.

The Lombardy region of Italy has around 10 million people, and 10 thousand dead via Covid-19, so there's another place that should be all done with that death stuff this week if Henry's numbers are better than those of the scare-quote "experts".

As for my home town, London, population 8.9 million, Covid deaths 10,612. So we have finished with ours, we're all done, time to get out in the lovely sunshine and stab each other again. That's really great news because I only actually know one person who definitely got this thing, and it didn't sound very nice. I'm glad to know that I have had it and didn't even notice.

Or it is just possible that Henry's pull a number from his ass method of clinical investigation isn't better than the work of epidemiologists who spend a lifetime studying this shit. Just as his imaginary climate science is really just a way of getting the results he wants when the evidence doesn't suit him.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 9592
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Death

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Mon Apr 13, 2020 10:13 am
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Mon Apr 13, 2020 9:58 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Mon Apr 13, 2020 9:31 am
So what? I said hot zones and I specified NYC. Why are you resorting to numbers designed to ignore the local factor inherent in all disease outbreaks?

The test I specified is wait and see and if Henry's guess is true this will be demonstrated adequately in a hot zone, for which NYC is the best example in America. The exact same applies of course in Lombardy and London as well.
Is it really a good example, with people packed in like sardines, poor health care, thousands of homeless and destitute people? Who is dying?
My maths is notoriously suspect, so please double check my calculations here. But if the disease kills only 0.1% of the people it infects, and 7,000 deaths are recorded to it in NYC, then 7,000 * 1000 = 7 million, and thus I believe 7 million infections must have delivered those 7 thousand deaths. No? In a city of 8.4 million people that means that they will finish their coronavirus problem in another thousand or two deaths. With upwards of 700 per day at the moment, that won't take long.

The Lombardy region of Italy has around 10 million people, and 10 thousand dead via Covid-19, so there's another place that should be all done with that death stuff this week if Henry's numbers are better than those of the scare-quote "experts".

As for my home town, London, population 8.9 million, Covid deaths 10,612. So we have finished with ours, we're all done, time to get out in the lovely sunshine and stab each other again. That's really great news because I only actually know one person who definitely got this thing, and it didn't sound very nice. I'm glad to know that I have had it and didn't even notice.

Or it is just possible that Henry's pull a number from his ass method of clinical investigation isn't better than the work of epidemiologists who spend a lifetime studying this shit. Just as his imaginary climate science is really just a way of getting the results he wants when the evidence doesn't suit him.
10,612 in the United Kingdom :|
I've already pointed out that no one knows, but it's just my feeling that it will end up averaging out at around .1 percent.
Look at Germany. Its population is a lot bigger than the UK, yet it's only had about a third of the deaths and a much higher rate of testing.
Iceland has tested over 10 percent of its population, and has had 8 deaths out of 1701 cases. If you multiply both by 10 then you get 80 deaths per 17000 cases.That works out at roughly .5 percent. NZ has a high rate of testing with 1349 cases and 5 deaths. Again that's about .5 percent. Then you have to look at WHO is dying, and in the case of NZ those five were all elderly (one in her nineties), all with existing health problems and most of them in rest homes. Is that a true indicator of the mortality rate of any virus?
Last edited by vegetariantaxidermy on Sun May 10, 2020 1:34 am, edited 1 time in total.
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 2908
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Death

Post by FlashDangerpants »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Mon Apr 13, 2020 11:37 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Mon Apr 13, 2020 10:13 am
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Mon Apr 13, 2020 9:58 am

Is it really a good example, with people packed in like sardines, poor health care, thousands of homeless and destitute people? Who is dying?
My maths is notoriously suspect, so please double check my calculations here. But if the disease kills only 0.1% of the people it infects, and 7,000 deaths are recorded to it in NYC, then 7,000 * 1000 = 7 million, and thus I believe 7 million infections must have delivered those 7 thousand deaths. No? In a city of 8.4 million people that means that they will finish their coronavirus problem in another thousand or two deaths. With upwards of 700 per day at the moment, that won't take long.

The Lombardy region of Italy has around 10 million people, and 10 thousand dead via Covid-19, so there's another place that should be all done with that death stuff this week if Henry's numbers are better than those of the scare-quote "experts".

As for my home town, London, population 8.9 million, Covid deaths 10,612. So we have finished with ours, we're all done, time to get out in the lovely sunshine and stab each other again. That's really great news because I only actually know one person who definitely got this thing, and it didn't sound very nice. I'm glad to know that I have had it and didn't even notice.

Or it is just possible that Henry's pull a number from his ass method of clinical investigation isn't better than the work of epidemiologists who spend a lifetime studying this shit. Just as his imaginary climate science is really just a way of getting the results he wants when the evidence doesn't suit him.
10,612 in the United Kingdom :|
I've already pointed out that no one knows, but it's just my feeling that it will end up averaging out at below 1 percent.
Look at Germany. Its population is a lot bigger than the UK, yet it's only had about a third of the deaths and a much higher rate of testing.
Iceland has tested over 10 percent of its population, and has had 8 deaths out of 1701 cases. If you multiply both by 10 then you get 80 deaths per 17000 cases.That works out at roughly .5 percent. NZ has a high rate of testing with 1349 cases and 5 deaths. Again that's about .5 percent. Then you have to look at WHO is dying, and in the case of NZ those five were all elderly (one in her nineties), all with existing health problems and most of them in rest homes. Is that a true indicator of the mortality rate of any virus?
So you are agreeing with my original point that Henry's 0.1% fatality estimate can be tested by just waiting to see when more than 0.1% of the people in a given region are dead of this thing, and therefore it can be falsified without having to wait for an antibody test.

What you are doing is bidding up that death value, from the 0.1% that Henry went with probably because that is the mortality rate of seasonal flu on the whole, into territory five times greater, rather than the ten times greater that some are estimating. At least you, unlike Henry, are actually in the territory where we will need actual studies to determine the true value. But I think you've rather sacrificed the "it's just a flu really" vibe in doing so.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 9592
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Death

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Mon Apr 13, 2020 12:37 pm
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Mon Apr 13, 2020 11:37 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Mon Apr 13, 2020 10:13 am
My maths is notoriously suspect, so please double check my calculations here. But if the disease kills only 0.1% of the people it infects, and 7,000 deaths are recorded to it in NYC, then 7,000 * 1000 = 7 million, and thus I believe 7 million infections must have delivered those 7 thousand deaths. No? In a city of 8.4 million people that means that they will finish their coronavirus problem in another thousand or two deaths. With upwards of 700 per day at the moment, that won't take long.

The Lombardy region of Italy has around 10 million people, and 10 thousand dead via Covid-19, so there's another place that should be all done with that death stuff this week if Henry's numbers are better than those of the scare-quote "experts".

As for my home town, London, population 8.9 million, Covid deaths 10,612. So we have finished with ours, we're all done, time to get out in the lovely sunshine and stab each other again. That's really great news because I only actually know one person who definitely got this thing, and it didn't sound very nice. I'm glad to know that I have had it and didn't even notice.

Or it is just possible that Henry's pull a number from his ass method of clinical investigation isn't better than the work of epidemiologists who spend a lifetime studying this shit. Just as his imaginary climate science is really just a way of getting the results he wants when the evidence doesn't suit him.
10,612 in the United Kingdom :|
I've already pointed out that no one knows, but it's just my feeling that it will end up averaging out at below 1 percent.
Look at Germany. Its population is a lot bigger than the UK, yet it's only had about a third of the deaths and a much higher rate of testing.
Iceland has tested over 10 percent of its population, and has had 8 deaths out of 1701 cases. If you multiply both by 10 then you get 80 deaths per 17000 cases.That works out at roughly .5 percent. NZ has a high rate of testing with 1349 cases and 5 deaths. Again that's about .5 percent. Then you have to look at WHO is dying, and in the case of NZ those five were all elderly (one in her nineties), all with existing health problems and most of them in rest homes. Is that a true indicator of the mortality rate of any virus?
So you are agreeing with my original point that Henry's 0.1% fatality estimate can be tested by just waiting to see when more than 0.1% of the people in a given region are dead of this thing, and therefore it can be falsified without having to wait for an antibody test.

What you are doing is bidding up that death value, from the 0.1% that Henry went with probably because that is the mortality rate of seasonal flu on the whole, into territory five times greater, rather than the ten times greater that some are estimating. At least you, unlike Henry, are actually in the territory where we will need actual studies to determine the true value. But I think you've rather sacrificed the "it's just a flu really" vibe in doing so.
Don't know what you are arguing about, or even if you are arguing. It might end up being .1%. It might be .5%. NO ONE KNOWS. Perhaps they will never know. They can't get an accurate number until they start testing everyone, regardless of whether or not they have symptoms. Of course the virus can be deadly, but it can also be completely harmless to a very large number of people. One thing is certain though; if the world economy implodes and millions of people lose their jobs, homes and businesses, then there will be a lot more dying than we are seeing now.
That said, I would much prefer it to have been the Thathcher-worshipping Boris Johnson or Charles the fox killer than Tim Brooke-Taylor. Loved the Goodies, and Tim was my favourite :cry:
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 2908
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Coronavirus Craziness

Post by FlashDangerpants »

NYC has a population of 8.4 million people, 103,208 confirmed covid-19 cases, and 6,717 deaths.

If all 8.4 million catch the disease, and the rate of deaths is 0.1%, then the death toll for that would be 8400.
So within a week or so 0.1% of New Yorkers will have died of this disease. After that, if the 0.1% estimate is remotely accurate, the disease will be gone from that city.

BUT ... if all 8.4 million have actually caught that disease, then it is incredibly infectious, and spreads at a tremendous rate. And if it spreads that quickly, then there is no containment possible. 0.1% of everyone everywhere should be dead or infected and awaiting death.

BUT ... that cannot be the case, because there are disease hotspots, regions with much higher rates of infection than elsewhere. If the disease were so speedy that 100% of New yorkers could get it all within a couple of months, then 100% of everyone else except a handful of people with no contact with the outside world should have the thing too. The death rate in that case would be the same everywhere because the absurdly infectious disease would be everywhere.

So the death rate must be significantly higher than these estimates, high enough to account for the current level of dying from the viable levels of infection for a disease that can actually settle down into hotspot zones, as this one demonstrably has.

I am not telling you what the correct final number will be, I am simply pointing out that what I originally wrote in response to Henry, and which you hijacked, is correct. We definitely know without needing the test he specified, that the true death rate of this disease is well above 0.1%. We know this just from our existing experience of how diseases spread. But we will also confirm it with simple arithmetic within a week or so.
Skepdick
Posts: 7920
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Death

Post by Skepdick »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Mon Apr 13, 2020 12:50 pm Don't know what you are arguing about, or even if you are arguing. It might end up being .1%. It might be .5%. NO ONE KNOWS. Perhaps they will never know.
But you can and you will know if it WAS NOT .1%. Very soon now...

So we will definitely know that henry was wrong (but since I am a gambling man, I already know it)
And we might also find out that the .5%-ers were wrong.
And the 1%-ers.
And the 2%-ers.

The whole point of this is "What is your own threshold at which you would admit that this is actually dangerous?" 5% ? 10% ? 50%?

How many corpses will convince you?
Skepdick
Posts: 7920
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Coronavirus Craziness

Post by Skepdick »

And if you want for an interesting A/B test... why is Ireland's mortality at 6.5/100k, but the UK is at 15/100k (with under-reporting)?

Could it be that they locked down 3 weeks sooner?
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12314
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Death

Post by Arising_uk »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:... One thing is certain though; if the world economy implodes and millions of people lose their jobs, homes and businesses, then there will be a lot more dying than we are seeing now. ...
Bit puzzled here as I thought you heartily disliked the idea of a globalised 'world economy'?
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 10405
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: Death

Post by henry quirk »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Mon Apr 13, 2020 12:37 pm
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Mon Apr 13, 2020 11:37 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Mon Apr 13, 2020 10:13 am
My maths is notoriously suspect, so please double check my calculations here. But if the disease kills only 0.1% of the people it infects, and 7,000 deaths are recorded to it in NYC, then 7,000 * 1000 = 7 million, and thus I believe 7 million infections must have delivered those 7 thousand deaths. No? In a city of 8.4 million people that means that they will finish their coronavirus problem in another thousand or two deaths. With upwards of 700 per day at the moment, that won't take long.

The Lombardy region of Italy has around 10 million people, and 10 thousand dead via Covid-19, so there's another place that should be all done with that death stuff this week if Henry's numbers are better than those of the scare-quote "experts".

As for my home town, London, population 8.9 million, Covid deaths 10,612. So we have finished with ours, we're all done, time to get out in the lovely sunshine and stab each other again. That's really great news because I only actually know one person who definitely got this thing, and it didn't sound very nice. I'm glad to know that I have had it and didn't even notice.

Or it is just possible that Henry's pull a number from his ass method of clinical investigation isn't better than the work of epidemiologists who spend a lifetime studying this shit. Just as his imaginary climate science is really just a way of getting the results he wants when the evidence doesn't suit him.
10,612 in the United Kingdom :|
I've already pointed out that no one knows, but it's just my feeling that it will end up averaging out at below 1 percent.
Look at Germany. Its population is a lot bigger than the UK, yet it's only had about a third of the deaths and a much higher rate of testing.
Iceland has tested over 10 percent of its population, and has had 8 deaths out of 1701 cases. If you multiply both by 10 then you get 80 deaths per 17000 cases.That works out at roughly .5 percent. NZ has a high rate of testing with 1349 cases and 5 deaths. Again that's about .5 percent. Then you have to look at WHO is dying, and in the case of NZ those five were all elderly (one in her nineties), all with existing health problems and most of them in rest homes. Is that a true indicator of the mortality rate of any virus?
So you are agreeing with my original point that Henry's 0.1% fatality estimate can be tested by just waiting to see when more than 0.1% of the people in a given region are dead of this thing, and therefore it can be falsified without having to wait for an antibody test.

What you are doing is bidding up that death value, from the 0.1% that Henry went with probably because that is the mortality rate of seasonal flu on the whole, into territory five times greater, rather than the ten times greater that some are estimating. At least you, unlike Henry, are actually in the territory where we will need actual studies to determine the true value. But I think you've rather sacrificed the "it's just a flu really" vibe in doing so.
Not my estimate...
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Mon Apr 13, 2020 2:25 am
I think you would be interested in what this guy has to say Henry.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UO3Wd5urg0

He's interviewed here as well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhjzBcP61qA

He mentions that Fauci guy.

They will only know the true mortality rate when they have tested a very large cross-section of the population for antibodies since there are probably a lot people who have had it without knowing it. I'm guessing at .1 percent, but it's just a guess, like everyone else is doing-- including the 'experts'.
...and the numbers I use, the comparisons I post come from the ass of Johns Hopkins, without revision.

And: I got no clue what my imaginary climate science is.

Anyway: from now on, I think I'll just keep my thinkin' to myself when it comes to all things virus.
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 2908
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Death

Post by FlashDangerpants »

henry quirk wrote: Mon Apr 13, 2020 4:58 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote: Mon Apr 13, 2020 12:37 pm
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Mon Apr 13, 2020 11:37 am

10,612 in the United Kingdom :|
I've already pointed out that no one knows, but it's just my feeling that it will end up averaging out at below 1 percent.
Look at Germany. Its population is a lot bigger than the UK, yet it's only had about a third of the deaths and a much higher rate of testing.
Iceland has tested over 10 percent of its population, and has had 8 deaths out of 1701 cases. If you multiply both by 10 then you get 80 deaths per 17000 cases.That works out at roughly .5 percent. NZ has a high rate of testing with 1349 cases and 5 deaths. Again that's about .5 percent. Then you have to look at WHO is dying, and in the case of NZ those five were all elderly (one in her nineties), all with existing health problems and most of them in rest homes. Is that a true indicator of the mortality rate of any virus?
So you are agreeing with my original point that Henry's 0.1% fatality estimate can be tested by just waiting to see when more than 0.1% of the people in a given region are dead of this thing, and therefore it can be falsified without having to wait for an antibody test.

What you are doing is bidding up that death value, from the 0.1% that Henry went with probably because that is the mortality rate of seasonal flu on the whole, into territory five times greater, rather than the ten times greater that some are estimating. At least you, unlike Henry, are actually in the territory where we will need actual studies to determine the true value. But I think you've rather sacrificed the "it's just a flu really" vibe in doing so.
Not my estimate...
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Mon Apr 13, 2020 2:25 am
I think you would be interested in what this guy has to say Henry.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UO3Wd5urg0

He's interviewed here as well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhjzBcP61qA

He mentions that Fauci guy.

They will only know the true mortality rate when they have tested a very large cross-section of the population for antibodies since there are probably a lot people who have had it without knowing it. I'm guessing at .1 percent, but it's just a guess, like everyone else is doing-- including the 'experts'.
...and the numbers I use, the comparisons I post come from the ass of Johns Hopkins, without revision.

And: I got no clue what my imaginary climate science is.

Anyway: from now on, I think I'll just keep my thinkin' to myself when it comes to all things virus.
Oops, my bad. The way you quote people by just pasting teir text tends to make it hard to tell sometimes when you are quoting, so, whoops.

Your own words were less than the flu, and infitesimal, no?
So the Flu kills at a rate of 0.1%. So .... not much take-backsey required tbh, but consider it taken back.
Post Reply