="Aircon, post: 147235538, member: 199"]Is that English?[/QUOTE] Yep Sent from my iPad using FerrariChat
So some countries are now just at the beginning of this. It's far from over it seems. Meanwhile, this is us. Image Unavailable, Please Login
#BREAKING: Moriah College, in Sydney's eastern suburbs, is the second school in the area to be closed today after a student tested positive for coronavirus.
Our politicians chose to have no herd immunity, of course we are going to see continuing infections. Fortunately, treatment has improved and the fatality rate is much lower than predicted.
this is an interesting table from the US CDC. Death rate for WuFlu is 0.005% higher than routine Flu. That was worth destroying 1/4 of the economy for. btw LTMCF = Long Term Medical Care Facility (elderly care homes) Image Unavailable, Please Login
Those figures need explanatory notes, Ian. "Overall Death rate" is typically a population based statistic, so 0.017% of the total population died from 'flu in the year 2017 - it does not state how many cases of influenza there were (which can only be estimated). So far in 2020, the overall death rate for Covid-19 has been 0.022% (of the total population). The are better data for Covid-19 case numbers, but (as I've explained before), the number of reported cases is less than the number of actual cases (CFR vs IFR). I would hope that the 2017 data for influenza have been time-matched to the 2020 data for Covid-19 (same cut-off dates), because 2020 ain't over yet. We also need to compare population case rates for each disease before the data can be compared (what percentage of the population had 'flu, and what percentage of the population gets Covid-19). These are never accurate figures. So overall death rate is useful, because both total population and death from any specific disease are hard numbers, but the usefulness is limited, because the number of deaths is only accurate after the disease epidemic has passed.
Sure, I'll tell the CDC to get right onto it This isn't something that needs to be overthought. What's emerging is the realisation that the world overreacted, panic caused by computer models - just like the climate hoax. This of course is Wrongthink and will be vigorously buried by the progressive media
Gee, pretty shure at least two months ago I was saying that the actual death rate would likely be way way lower than the panicky 3-4% we were being told to expect, and the 6% + that some shonky figures being touted on here indicated. What we are seeing now is that those figures (using only "resolved" cases so early in the piece) were a poor way of showing us what was actually going on. And that is exactly what I (and one or two others) said at the time.
No one said 6% was the figure to expect. It was just another figure that was as useless as the ones you and Dr stats were pushing at the time.
I don't disagree with you - the left will cherry-pick the data to suit their ends. What I'm saying is that, until this whole thing is over, the data are not robust enough to say anything. While the numbers were changing daily, I posted the most up-to-date numbers I could, so we could see the trends, and compare our situation with other countries' (thus Peter's favourite Case Fatality Rate). I haven't bothered recently, because the numbers plateaued, then fell. Right now, we've had 7133 confirmed cases, and 102 deaths, which is a Case Fatality Rate of 1.4%. If we increase testing, the CFR will fall.
So why were you constantly pushing a useless measurement? And which one of the two that were constantly referred to early on turned out to be more accurate? Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login
Didn't they just leave everything open and do the herd immunity thing? I'm not 100% on that, just asking!
To show they were ALL ridiculous. and hang on, PILOT......it's either accurate or not...there's no almost pregnant here.