Stanford Epidemiologist On COVID Death Rate: 0.15%

Okay, let's try this again.

Did you see it this time? I'm not sure how much easier I can make this for you.

1/3 is the LOWER BOUND, according to a study done by the New York Times. In reality, the figure is likely much higher.

From the article:

As much as I love educating you on basic facts that you should already know, there comes a point where you just need to admit that you don't have any idea what you're talking about.

 

You would first have to demonstrate that said mitigations are actually effective. Problem is, they aren't. In fact, they've been a total disaster on every level.

 

I get my information from the world's top epidemiologists at Stanford and Oxford.

 

I don't know, I rather go with the data from my county. Roughly 15,000 cases and roughly 300 deaths, which is basically the 2% fatality rate that seems to be now commonly accepted. Now, even if we were generous and assume that a lot of cases were missed at the start of the pandemic due to lack of testing, let's say there had been 30,000 cases. That's still a FR of 1%, far above the one of 0.15% cited in this study. I call bunk.

 

Indeed. His math skills suck.

Agreed. And that's why using quantitative terminology (rather than subjective terminology) is important... Apparently 0.15% is "really high" to Kranes. I, like you, consider it to be a rather insignificant amount.

 

I did see the "could be", do you know what that means? It means it is a guess that cannot be supported.

 

One of them at least. You seem to ignore the rest

 

Those are just made up numbers.

 

It doesn't matter because masks and social distancing do not stop viruses. Viruses are much smaller than mask pores are, and viruses can travel much farther than six feet.

 

so are the numbers used in the OP...and the funny part is they are made up using the numbers you just called made up!

 

Prove it.

You are just playing word games.

The 0.15% death rate is based on a statistical estimate of total cases. Either provide evidence that his estimate is wrong or simply admit that you have nothing.

 

And yet mask and social distancing have pretty much taken away the flu for the season.

 

Then I don't understand your point. In your op you presented the number of a 99.85% survival rate like it was central to this post. I thought you were using that number to follow up with the sheer lunacy of COVID mitigation statement. Now you are saying lets not even use the rate as a gauge but instead demonstrate the said mitigations are effective. So why bring up the rate in the first place? If the rate doesn't matter why post a link to it's findings?

 

He did not provide any evidence of how he came to his estimate, thus I have no way of knowing if it is accurate.

 

You'd rather go with the cherry-picked data that seems to validate your biases instead of the comprehensive analysis done by one of the world's top epidemiologists? And you admit this freely? Fascinating.

 

He wrote an entire study explaining it, which I linked to in the opening post.

For someone who claims to be a statistician, you sure do miss a lot of obvious things.

 

Especially when you consider the fact that the majority of COVID decedents were going to die soon no matter what we did.

 

All statistical inference is basically a guess. That doesn't mean it cannot be supported. Not sure why this needs to explained to someone who claims to be a statistician.

 

Says the guy who gets most of his information from his wife...

 

So all the COVID numbers are made up... or just the ones you don't like?

 

You actually believe that? Wow...

 

Neither does the CDC, Worldometer, or any other source. The total number of covid cases is unknown. It can only be estimated (aka "made up numbers")

We also do not redefine deaths by stroke, heart disease, cancer, pneumonia, flu, vehicular accident, etc. into "deaths by covid" for any other disease, so that's a bit dishonest as well.

The truth of the matter is that is it not possible to know how many covid cases there have been, nor how many deaths have been due to covid (the latter due to dishonesty).

 

I know right, crazy to get medical information from a medial professional.

 

Actually we do. Most every death has comorbidities. My step dad died of heart failure....which was brought about by having cancer is the majority of his major organs. So they redefined his death from heart failure to cancer...weird.

 

Not enough people have suffered and died

I see. Not enough people have suffered and died, and hospitals have not been overwhelmed enough, for this to be taken seriously, huh? Never mind that the death toll so far has been kept down as much as it has through the mitigation efforts you are deriding, and never mind that every country the world over takes this disease seriously. Somehow, it's a demented narcissist and his millions of low-info fans who are right about this thing, not the rest of the country and the world, and those who have died from Covid-19 don't matter. They're just a tiny-looking statistic against the number of known Covid-19 survivors. Those who are left with long-term aftereffects and dead loved ones just need to suck it up so that we can feel better about Donald Trump's disastrous presidency and denial of reality, and of course blame the economic upset on people who were dumb enough to try and save lives.

By the way, here are some of those statistics:



But hey, it overwhelmingly targets people who are going to die within months no matter what, right? So yeah, we never should have taken measures to mitigate the spread of this disease. People's children, spouses, parents, grandparents, coworkers, friends -- they're just not that important. We have to think of the stock market, damn it.