Check the definitions of the terms you are using and you don't get confused!
Insist on analysis based on your own hunches and non scientific explanations and you WILL get confused.
Simple as that!
(3 votes)
Not really new information
Check the definitions of the terms you are using and you don't get confused!
Insist on analysis based on your own hunches and non scientific explanations and you WILL get confused.
Simple as that!
Comments
(Old Spike)
Do you have evidence that all of the calculated reports are true?
Such as every reported covid death was actually from Covid and not any other cause?
Or evidence that every reported positive test was a true positive diagnosis with zero margin for error?
(Old Spike)
The onus would be on the "critic" to prove that the errors made in detection / diagnosis are wrong to such an extent (and in only one direction) that they have statistical sgnificance.
Everyone involved knows (or should know) that the numbers are of course not perfect, however, asking for a scientific impossibility strongly points to a political agenda.
(Old Spike)
"the numbers are of course not perfect"
The real question is how not perfect are they.
With you the onus goes on the other no matter what because you're lazy.
No. You made the claim by posting this video that you believe it's accurate. The burden stays with you. Nice try. Not really.
(Old Spike)
I am sorry I did not make any claim whatsoever that contradicts current state of research on the matter. You otoh decided to question the data collection and probably the whole "leftist marxist" CDC and WHO.
You should post someone's research that qualifies your statements. But of course you can't. That does not put the ball in "my" court, it remains in yours. If you had valid information you'd try to rub it in everyone's face. but you don't.
Case closed.
(Old Spike)
Not even close.
To you the onus is always on anyone but you no matter which side of the table you are sitting on.
Not this time.
If you want to play stupid games you will win stupid prizes.
(Old Spike)
Oh dear. Again you don't have any evidence to the contrary but expect those that actually do trust current research to do "the work" for you.
Again if you had an argument even remotely suspended by some sort of evidence you would rub it into "our" faces. You don't, your head is just a hot air balloon leaking a not even luke warm breeze.
If you actually want to look at the sources, they, as with all potholer videos, are listed in the yt description:
SOURCES:
Graph showing infection rates by country https://www.nippon.com/en/japan-data/...
Excess deaths: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/la... https://www.bbc.com/news/health-52623141 https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2... "However, when taking quality into account, and only analysing those sero surveys that had a low risk of bias, it is interesting to note that the inferred IFR rises substantially to 0.76% (0.37-1.15%). This may be due to the bias in lower-quality serosurveys being towards a higher prevalence (30), which in turn lowers the IFR substantially." https://www.ijidonline.com/action/sho...
WHO CFR and IFR February 19, 2020: https://www.who.int/docs/default-sour...
WHO March statement: "the data we have so far indicate that the crude mortality ratio (the number of reported deaths divided by the reported cases) is between 3-4%, the infection mortality rate (the number of reported deaths divided by the number of infections) will be lower." https://www.who.int/docs/default-sour....
Estimates of IFR: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrx... https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/d5cf...
"Epidemiological Characteristics of 2009 (H1N1) Pandemic Influenza Based on Paired Sera from a Longitudinal Community Cohort Study" https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/ca...
DONATIONS: If you'd like to support this channel, please don't send money to me.
My videos are free and my channel isn't monetized, so if you'd like to donate and encourage me to spend the time and effort it takes to check all this information, please send money to a charity I endorse, listed in the video description. Thanks. The charity I strongly endorse is called Health in Harmony. It funds a hospital in Borneo that provides affordable health care to villages on the edge of a national park in return for a pledge not to cut down trees. The pledges are monitored, and the result has been a dramatic decrease in deforestation rates and an increase in the health of the local population. Thanks to your generous contributions, the founders are spreading the idea to other countries, like Madagascar. See https://psmag.com/social-justice/save... for an explanation of their work. You can make a donation by bank transfer here… https://healthinharmony.org/donate/
(Old Spike)
So what your saying is this song and dance over a virus is for nothing.
I already knew that.
(Old Spike)
Where did I say that?
(Old Spike)
Good video - I haven't read all of the posts here on COVID but I haven't seen anyone here confusing CFR with IFR so I guess we're a smart bunch. The idea at the end that Trump would just listen to someone uninformed who confuses the two and then turn around and execute some disastrous command is idiotic to the extreme, but consistent with the patronizing tone this creator often adopts - he wasn't actually worried about that being a problem. He's lying or experiencing symptoms of TDS when he says that.
(Old Spike)
"The idea at the end that Trump would just listen to someone uninformed who confuses the two and then turn around and execute some disastrous command is idiotic to the extreme,"
Actually it would be rather consistant with his approach to the pandemic (and not only to this).
(Old Spike)
No, it would not be - it would be consistent with leftist media's portrayal of his handling of the pandemic. You often fail to make that distinction. Potholeinthehead likely does as well, either deberately or as a result of TDS induced by media. I think you both are doing it deliberately. Unlike some of the others here I don't believe you actually suffer from TDS - this make me less patient with you.
(Old Spike)
Here it is again, the reason why I ask you to seek help! URGENTLY because it does seem to be getting worse.
Scientific opinions and cosensus is not a "leftist" agenda. Political agendas get in the way of scientific education and progress in a similar fashion clergy did and to a too great extent still do.
This why researchers and scientists come to the same conclusions and DON'T change course regardless of political ideologies (following change of) governments (with the exception of dictatorships). This is not perfect but people work on current knowledge and experience in the field, not on hunches.