What is the infection fatality rate (IFR) of Covid 19 now?

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Asmodeus3



UK 1·568%

Seems higher than the 0.15% you keep quoting.

As above. You clearly haven't understood what IFR is.

As above, again the lack of understanding is yours.

I wouldn't think so.
You clearly don't understand what IFR is and by your own admission you don't have any qualifications or experience in science and epidemiology. So make sure you don't just copy paste from links.

Unlike your qualifications which are ???

The lockdowns have been debunked by many scientists and epidemiologists.

They were never proven to be good epidemiological measures in the first place. They were asserted as such and imposed with political decisions.

No answer to what your qualifications are, despite asking what mine (or anyone who disagrees with you) are repeatedly.

Your claim they are 'debunked" is just your opinion.

By your own admission you are not an expert or have any experience in epidemiology or science. Trying to argue in matters you seem not to understand isn't a wise option. It seems you don't even know what IFR is and how it is measured.

Professor Woolhouse, Gupta, John Ioannidis, and many others, don't have just opinions. They have knowledge and it's nowhere near your unsubstantiated assertions of the the success of the lockdowns and/or on how the IFR is measured and what it is.

What are your qualifications ?

I know IFR is. You on the other hand seem to think it's a single figure.

The IFR of a particular disease is a single figure. For example the IFR of the Spanish Flu was 10%
How did they estimate this? 50 million deaths over 500 million infections.

No it isn't.

IFR is specific to the population you are looking at.

You have previously posted IFR by age that shows this.

What was it you posted about quoting text you don't understand?

No it is not.

The IFR of the Spanish Flu was 10%.
That was the global average IFR and this is what described the disease.

You can give different values for different populations but at the end you need a global average figure.

Your own link gives different IFRs. Are they wrong?

IFR is specific to the population you are measuring against. A global IFR is one version , you can also have measured at country or any demographic split.

Don't try to play it dumb.

The Spanish Flu for example killed 50 million people and infected 500 million people so it has an IFR of 10%.

You can give different values for different populations but in the end you need a global average figure.

Otherwise you will have several numbers associated with a particular disease.

There are different numbers associated with a particular disease. Pretty much every disease.

That is the point.

The only number they describes how deadly a disease is always given by the global average IFR.

No. The point you are trying to make is to relate IFR to lockdowns because in a given area or age group it might appear or be higher.

As if lockdowns were effective epidemiological measures or have been proven to be effective. They were imposed with political mandates. And have been debunked by several scientists including Dr John Ioannidis which has estimated the IFR of COVID-19 to be 0.15%

Your point isnt even coherent anymore.

You acknowledge IFR varies by population yet think only the global IFR is ever used.

Countries base policy on their own demographics, not global ones.

No you are making a strawman argument

The number that describes how deadly a disease is, is given by the global average IFR. And not by local IFRs or IFRs by age group.

Is that simple.

Hence the IFR of Spanish Flu was 10%
And the IFR of Covid-19 was 0.15%

Simple but also irrelevant.

Good that you understand how simple the IFR is and that how deadly a disease is, is described by the global average IFR.

So again

The number that describes how deadly a disease is, is given by the global average IFR. And not by local IFRs or IFRs by age group

Hence the IFR of Spanish Flu was 10%
And the IFR of Covid-19 was 0.15%

And by the way nothing here is irrelevant to the topic discussed.

The question asked in the OP was what is the IFR for Covid-19. Hence they are expecting a specific number and not several numbers according to age group and population. They are expecting to get the global average IFR

The question has been answered
It was 0.15% and it is expected to be lower than that given the immunity that we now have after 3 years of exposure.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Asmodeus3

And IFR in developed countries could be ten times that rate.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Which seems far more relevant.

Could have been in the past in some countries. After 3 years of exposure this is very very unlikely. But the IFR on its own which was always low to start with, could have never been the main reason for lockdowns and various restrictions. These 'things' were never justified. They were political measures and not epidemiological measures and that is why they have failed.

1% IFR in the US would be three million plus deaths.

That not justifying measures might be your opinion, many others would disagree.

this cannot be stated as fact yet, but those who think a little, questioned why and how the flu was totally gone while Covid was here, and some of us, think it's possible it didn't really go away, but was lumped into the covid numbers, to make covid look like it was the deadliest thing evar. You are free to believe the official narrative as you most certainly will, but one day, you may have to look back and wonder how you were to easily led down the wrong path.

Excess deaths went up at the same time.

If Flu was repacked into covid the it would also have been the most deadly flu season in a century. Which would beg the question why not say its the flu?

One day you may have to look back and wonder why you believed irational conspiracy theories that so easily led you down the wrong path.

and what if covid was a little bad, but once coupled with flu and other illnesses that used to exist, was all called "covid". I don't need you to believe me, I just like to have the placeholder here so when and if it's as I suspect, I can use it to show you how easily led you are. And I'm a conspiracy nut, behaving like a conspiracy nut. So I don't fear any reckoning from boot lickers. I'm crazy baby.

Doesn't explain the increase in excess deaths.

It's funny however that you think it's conspiracy theorists who aren't easily led.

Wait, coupling COVID with all the nasties we usually get would not explain an increase in excess deaths?

Your DERP is moving too rapidly for your posts. Slow that DERP down.

Try thinking about that for a moment.

You might want to reallocate the DERP.

Let me know if/when you get it.

nope, been thinking on it a bit now. let's see if you can pinpoint my flaw in logic. Say 200,000 people a year die from flu, averaged over 7 years. (hypothetical numbers)
But in 2021 250,000 died from Covid and 23 died from flu.

A person such as myself would think, "after hearing how piss poor the testing was, and knowing how hard "they" wanted to to pump up the covid numbers, it looks like covid was mildly deadly, and they rebranded the flu deaths as covid."

So seeing as how you have doubled down on the DERP, it's now up to you to explain to me why that line of thinking is so far off the mark.

Good luck sport.

I said that doesn't explain excess deaths. You also said excess deaths in your reply

So to use your numbers.

200,000 people a year die from flu on average.

In 2020 they get 50,000 covid deaths and relabel the 200,000 flu deaths as covid to give you 250,000 covid deaths.

How many extra deaths are there?

A. 250,000
B. 50,000
C. Derp.


Showing your workings is optional.

50,000

Your point evades me. Explain it link you are 8 years old.

Here is what you said.

Wait, coupling COVID with all the nasties we usually get would not explain an increase in excess deaths?

Now I take it from your correct answer above you get that rebranding flu as covid doesn't actually increase excess deaths?

astounding epic fail. Kudos for that. I explained it the same way several times, it just took you several tries to comprehend it, and you smugly thought you had some kind of win because of it. Typical for you. Thanks for providing the DERP yet again.

rebranding the flu as covid makes the 50,000 covid deaths look like 250,000 covid deaths, all while thinking the world won't notice the flu deaths went away. Again, DERP. Ill petition for a crayon font for our next meeting.

Repetition is important for learning.
Key element in the learning process

a reply to: ScepticScot


You seem to be driven by ideology and beliefs.
Beliefs in lockdowns for example is one such belief which you try to justify by inflating the IFR or by misrepresenting the number.

So let me guess. Left-wing?

Yes, let's lockdown entire societies for the greater good. Lockdowns are 'proven' to be 'safe and effective' in the chronicles left wing activism...

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Asmodeus3

And IFR in developed countries could be ten times that rate.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Which seems far more relevant.

Could have been in the past in some countries. After 3 years of exposure this is very very unlikely. But the IFR on its own which was always low to start with, could have never been the main reason for lockdowns and various restrictions. These 'things' were never justified. They were political measures and not epidemiological measures and that is why they have failed.

1% IFR in the US would be three million plus deaths.

That not justifying measures might be your opinion, many others would disagree.

this cannot be stated as fact yet, but those who think a little, questioned why and how the flu was totally gone while Covid was here, and some of us, think it's possible it didn't really go away, but was lumped into the covid numbers, to make covid look like it was the deadliest thing evar. You are free to believe the official narrative as you most certainly will, but one day, you may have to look back and wonder how you were to easily led down the wrong path.

Excess deaths went up at the same time.

If Flu was repacked into covid the it would also have been the most deadly flu season in a century. Which would beg the question why not say its the flu?

One day you may have to look back and wonder why you believed irational conspiracy theories that so easily led you down the wrong path.

and what if covid was a little bad, but once coupled with flu and other illnesses that used to exist, was all called "covid". I don't need you to believe me, I just like to have the placeholder here so when and if it's as I suspect, I can use it to show you how easily led you are. And I'm a conspiracy nut, behaving like a conspiracy nut. So I don't fear any reckoning from boot lickers. I'm crazy baby.

Doesn't explain the increase in excess deaths.

It's funny however that you think it's conspiracy theorists who aren't easily led.

Wait, coupling COVID with all the nasties we usually get would not explain an increase in excess deaths?

Your DERP is moving too rapidly for your posts. Slow that DERP down.

Try thinking about that for a moment.

You might want to reallocate the DERP.

Let me know if/when you get it.

nope, been thinking on it a bit now. let's see if you can pinpoint my flaw in logic. Say 200,000 people a year die from flu, averaged over 7 years. (hypothetical numbers)
But in 2021 250,000 died from Covid and 23 died from flu.

A person such as myself would think, "after hearing how piss poor the testing was, and knowing how hard "they" wanted to to pump up the covid numbers, it looks like covid was mildly deadly, and they rebranded the flu deaths as covid."

So seeing as how you have doubled down on the DERP, it's now up to you to explain to me why that line of thinking is so far off the mark.

Good luck sport.

I said that doesn't explain excess deaths. You also said excess deaths in your reply

So to use your numbers.

200,000 people a year die from flu on average.

In 2020 they get 50,000 covid deaths and relabel the 200,000 flu deaths as covid to give you 250,000 covid deaths.

How many extra deaths are there?

A. 250,000
B. 50,000
C. Derp.


Showing your workings is optional.

50,000

Your point evades me. Explain it link you are 8 years old.

Here is what you said.

Wait, coupling COVID with all the nasties we usually get would not explain an increase in excess deaths?

Now I take it from your correct answer above you get that rebranding flu as covid doesn't actually increase excess deaths?

astounding epic fail. Kudos for that. I explained it the same way several times, it just took you several tries to comprehend it, and you smugly thought you had some kind of win because of it. Typical for you. Thanks for providing the DERP yet again.

rebranding the flu as covid makes the 50,000 covid deaths look like 250,000 covid deaths, all while thinking the world won't notice the flu deaths went away. Again, DERP. Ill petition for a crayon font for our next meeting.

You said exees deaths (as quoted) while responding to me saying it didn't explain excess deaths.

The fail and DERP are all yours I am afraid.

You could have a little dignity and admit you made a mistake. Sadly that seems beyond you these days.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: ScepticScot


You seem to be driven by ideology and beliefs.
Beliefs in lockdowns for example is one such belief which you try to justify by inflating the IFR or by misrepresenting the number.

So let me guess. Left-wing?

Yes, let's lockdown entire societies for the greater good. Lockdowns are 'proven' to be 'safe and effective' in the chronicles left wing activism...

I am sure that the in power Conservative party in the UK would love our theory that lockdowns were left wing activism.

The person pushing the ideological view point is you.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Asmodeus3

And IFR in developed countries could be ten times that rate.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Which seems far more relevant.

Could have been in the past in some countries. After 3 years of exposure this is very very unlikely. But the IFR on its own which was always low to start with, could have never been the main reason for lockdowns and various restrictions. These 'things' were never justified. They were political measures and not epidemiological measures and that is why they have failed.

1% IFR in the US would be three million plus deaths.

That not justifying measures might be your opinion, many others would disagree.

this cannot be stated as fact yet, but those who think a little, questioned why and how the flu was totally gone while Covid was here, and some of us, think it's possible it didn't really go away, but was lumped into the covid numbers, to make covid look like it was the deadliest thing evar. You are free to believe the official narrative as you most certainly will, but one day, you may have to look back and wonder how you were to easily led down the wrong path.

Excess deaths went up at the same time.

If Flu was repacked into covid the it would also have been the most deadly flu season in a century. Which would beg the question why not say its the flu?

One day you may have to look back and wonder why you believed irational conspiracy theories that so easily led you down the wrong path.

and what if covid was a little bad, but once coupled with flu and other illnesses that used to exist, was all called "covid". I don't need you to believe me, I just like to have the placeholder here so when and if it's as I suspect, I can use it to show you how easily led you are. And I'm a conspiracy nut, behaving like a conspiracy nut. So I don't fear any reckoning from boot lickers. I'm crazy baby.

Doesn't explain the increase in excess deaths.

It's funny however that you think it's conspiracy theorists who aren't easily led.

Wait, coupling COVID with all the nasties we usually get would not explain an increase in excess deaths?

Your DERP is moving too rapidly for your posts. Slow that DERP down.

Try thinking about that for a moment.

You might want to reallocate the DERP.

Let me know if/when you get it.

nope, been thinking on it a bit now. let's see if you can pinpoint my flaw in logic. Say 200,000 people a year die from flu, averaged over 7 years. (hypothetical numbers)
But in 2021 250,000 died from Covid and 23 died from flu.

A person such as myself would think, "after hearing how piss poor the testing was, and knowing how hard "they" wanted to to pump up the covid numbers, it looks like covid was mildly deadly, and they rebranded the flu deaths as covid."

So seeing as how you have doubled down on the DERP, it's now up to you to explain to me why that line of thinking is so far off the mark.

Good luck sport.

I said that doesn't explain excess deaths. You also said excess deaths in your reply

So to use your numbers.

200,000 people a year die from flu on average.

In 2020 they get 50,000 covid deaths and relabel the 200,000 flu deaths as covid to give you 250,000 covid deaths.

How many extra deaths are there?

A. 250,000
B. 50,000
C. Derp.


Showing your workings is optional.

50,000

Your point evades me. Explain it link you are 8 years old.

Here is what you said.

Wait, coupling COVID with all the nasties we usually get would not explain an increase in excess deaths?

Now I take it from your correct answer above you get that rebranding flu as covid doesn't actually increase excess deaths?

astounding epic fail. Kudos for that. I explained it the same way several times, it just took you several tries to comprehend it, and you smugly thought you had some kind of win because of it. Typical for you. Thanks for providing the DERP yet again.

rebranding the flu as covid makes the 50,000 covid deaths look like 250,000 covid deaths, all while thinking the world won't notice the flu deaths went away. Again, DERP. Ill petition for a crayon font for our next meeting.

Repetition is important for learning.
Key element in the learning process

Apparently so since you still fail to understand.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Asmodeus3

And IFR in developed countries could be ten times that rate.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Which seems far more relevant.

Could have been in the past in some countries. After 3 years of exposure this is very very unlikely. But the IFR on its own which was always low to start with, could have never been the main reason for lockdowns and various restrictions. These 'things' were never justified. They were political measures and not epidemiological measures and that is why they have failed.

1% IFR in the US would be three million plus deaths.

That not justifying measures might be your opinion, many others would disagree.

this cannot be stated as fact yet, but those who think a little, questioned why and how the flu was totally gone while Covid was here, and some of us, think it's possible it didn't really go away, but was lumped into the covid numbers, to make covid look like it was the deadliest thing evar. You are free to believe the official narrative as you most certainly will, but one day, you may have to look back and wonder how you were to easily led down the wrong path.

Excess deaths went up at the same time.

If Flu was repacked into covid the it would also have been the most deadly flu season in a century. Which would beg the question why not say its the flu?

One day you may have to look back and wonder why you believed irational conspiracy theories that so easily led you down the wrong path.

and what if covid was a little bad, but once coupled with flu and other illnesses that used to exist, was all called "covid". I don't need you to believe me, I just like to have the placeholder here so when and if it's as I suspect, I can use it to show you how easily led you are. And I'm a conspiracy nut, behaving like a conspiracy nut. So I don't fear any reckoning from boot lickers. I'm crazy baby.

Doesn't explain the increase in excess deaths.

It's funny however that you think it's conspiracy theorists who aren't easily led.

Wait, coupling COVID with all the nasties we usually get would not explain an increase in excess deaths?

Your DERP is moving too rapidly for your posts. Slow that DERP down.

Try thinking about that for a moment.

You might want to reallocate the DERP.

Let me know if/when you get it.

nope, been thinking on it a bit now. let's see if you can pinpoint my flaw in logic. Say 200,000 people a year die from flu, averaged over 7 years. (hypothetical numbers)
But in 2021 250,000 died from Covid and 23 died from flu.

A person such as myself would think, "after hearing how piss poor the testing was, and knowing how hard "they" wanted to to pump up the covid numbers, it looks like covid was mildly deadly, and they rebranded the flu deaths as covid."

So seeing as how you have doubled down on the DERP, it's now up to you to explain to me why that line of thinking is so far off the mark.

Good luck sport.

I said that doesn't explain excess deaths. You also said excess deaths in your reply

So to use your numbers.

200,000 people a year die from flu on average.

In 2020 they get 50,000 covid deaths and relabel the 200,000 flu deaths as covid to give you 250,000 covid deaths.

How many extra deaths are there?

A. 250,000
B. 50,000
C. Derp.


Showing your workings is optional.

50,000

Your point evades me. Explain it link you are 8 years old.

Here is what you said.

Wait, coupling COVID with all the nasties we usually get would not explain an increase in excess deaths?

Now I take it from your correct answer above you get that rebranding flu as covid doesn't actually increase excess deaths?

astounding epic fail. Kudos for that. I explained it the same way several times, it just took you several tries to comprehend it, and you smugly thought you had some kind of win because of it. Typical for you. Thanks for providing the DERP yet again.

rebranding the flu as covid makes the 50,000 covid deaths look like 250,000 covid deaths, all while thinking the world won't notice the flu deaths went away. Again, DERP. Ill petition for a crayon font for our next meeting.

You said exees deaths (as quoted) while responding to me saying it didn't explain excess deaths.

The fail and DERP are all yours I am afraid.

You could have a little dignity and admit you made a mistake. Sadly that seems beyond you these days.

NO DERP, here is what I said.

Wait, coupling COVID with all the nasties we usually get would not explain an increase in excess deaths?

And I'll explain it once more for the short bus rider you apparently are.

If you take the normal sicknesses (flu, cold, respiratory illness) numbers, and instead of calling them that, but call everything "a covid death", then you increase the numbers with a false premise. Each year, the flu causes deaths. But it seems that when covid came around, and we needed scary numbers to scare the people into getting the vaccine that won't keep them from getting sick or spreading the virus, the flu just went away, and covid killed a whole lot of people.

Now this is what I said, and it's been explained several times, to the point even a true idiot could grasp it.

I think it's time you admit you ran with something you didn't understand. It's a bad look. And just like running with scissors, it's dangerous. Perhaps take a bit of time to understand things, before you make yourself look this foolish.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Asmodeus3

And IFR in developed countries could be ten times that rate.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Which seems far more relevant.

Could have been in the past in some countries. After 3 years of exposure this is very very unlikely. But the IFR on its own which was always low to start with, could have never been the main reason for lockdowns and various restrictions. These 'things' were never justified. They were political measures and not epidemiological measures and that is why they have failed.

1% IFR in the US would be three million plus deaths.

That not justifying measures might be your opinion, many others would disagree.

this cannot be stated as fact yet, but those who think a little, questioned why and how the flu was totally gone while Covid was here, and some of us, think it's possible it didn't really go away, but was lumped into the covid numbers, to make covid look like it was the deadliest thing evar. You are free to believe the official narrative as you most certainly will, but one day, you may have to look back and wonder how you were to easily led down the wrong path.

Excess deaths went up at the same time.

If Flu was repacked into covid the it would also have been the most deadly flu season in a century. Which would beg the question why not say its the flu?

One day you may have to look back and wonder why you believed irational conspiracy theories that so easily led you down the wrong path.

and what if covid was a little bad, but once coupled with flu and other illnesses that used to exist, was all called "covid". I don't need you to believe me, I just like to have the placeholder here so when and if it's as I suspect, I can use it to show you how easily led you are. And I'm a conspiracy nut, behaving like a conspiracy nut. So I don't fear any reckoning from boot lickers. I'm crazy baby.

Doesn't explain the increase in excess deaths.

It's funny however that you think it's conspiracy theorists who aren't easily led.

Wait, coupling COVID with all the nasties we usually get would not explain an increase in excess deaths?

Your DERP is moving too rapidly for your posts. Slow that DERP down.

Try thinking about that for a moment.

You might want to reallocate the DERP.

Let me know if/when you get it.

nope, been thinking on it a bit now. let's see if you can pinpoint my flaw in logic. Say 200,000 people a year die from flu, averaged over 7 years. (hypothetical numbers)
But in 2021 250,000 died from Covid and 23 died from flu.

A person such as myself would think, "after hearing how piss poor the testing was, and knowing how hard "they" wanted to to pump up the covid numbers, it looks like covid was mildly deadly, and they rebranded the flu deaths as covid."

So seeing as how you have doubled down on the DERP, it's now up to you to explain to me why that line of thinking is so far off the mark.

Good luck sport.

I said that doesn't explain excess deaths. You also said excess deaths in your reply

So to use your numbers.

200,000 people a year die from flu on average.

In 2020 they get 50,000 covid deaths and relabel the 200,000 flu deaths as covid to give you 250,000 covid deaths.

How many extra deaths are there?

A. 250,000
B. 50,000
C. Derp.


Showing your workings is optional.

50,000

Your point evades me. Explain it link you are 8 years old.

Here is what you said.

Wait, coupling COVID with all the nasties we usually get would not explain an increase in excess deaths?

Now I take it from your correct answer above you get that rebranding flu as covid doesn't actually increase excess deaths?

astounding epic fail. Kudos for that. I explained it the same way several times, it just took you several tries to comprehend it, and you smugly thought you had some kind of win because of it. Typical for you. Thanks for providing the DERP yet again.

rebranding the flu as covid makes the 50,000 covid deaths look like 250,000 covid deaths, all while thinking the world won't notice the flu deaths went away. Again, DERP. Ill petition for a crayon font for our next meeting.

You said exees deaths (as quoted) while responding to me saying it didn't explain excess deaths.

The fail and DERP are all yours I am afraid.

You could have a little dignity and admit you made a mistake. Sadly that seems beyond you these days.

NO DERP, here is what I said.

Wait, coupling COVID with all the nasties we usually get would not explain an increase in excess deaths?

And I'll explain it once more for the short bus rider you apparently are.

If you take the normal sicknesses (flu, cold, respiratory illness) numbers, and instead of calling them that, but call everything "a covid death", then you increase the numbers with a false premise. Each year, the flu causes deaths. But it seems that when covid came around, and we needed scary numbers to scare the people into getting the vaccine that won't keep them from getting sick or spreading the virus, the flu just went away, and covid killed a whole lot of people.

Now this is what I said, and it's been explained several times, to the point even a true idiot could grasp it.

I think it's time you admit you ran with something you didn't understand. It's a bad look. And just like running with scissors, it's dangerous. Perhaps take a bit of time to understand things, before you make yourself look this foolish.

I do agree it would take a true idiot to get your point. Maybe if we keep to numbers that you can do with your socks on.

If you have 5 deaths per year average then you get 1 more death you know have 6. 1 excess death.

If you have 5 deaths per year and you call one of those deaths covid, ebola or terminal DERPness you still have 5 deaths. 0 excess deaths.

Renaming deaths does not create excess deaths.

As we had a major increase in excess deaths in 2020 then it is not explained by your theory of Flu being called Covid.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: ScepticScot


You seem to be driven by ideology and beliefs.
Beliefs in lockdowns for example is one such belief which you try to justify by inflating the IFR or by misrepresenting the number.

So let me guess. Left-wing?

Yes, let's lockdown entire societies for the greater good. Lockdowns are 'proven' to be 'safe and effective' in the chronicles left wing activism...

I am sure that the in power Conservative party in the UK would love our theory that lockdowns were left wing activism.

The person pushing the ideological view point is you.

No. You are trying to argue on the basis of ideology and politics. And I am not from the UK by the way. Beliefs in very damaging measures such as lockdowns that have never been proven to work but have been politically imposed.

On the way you make references to IFR which is the topic of this thread trying to inflate the number using selecting populations so you can support your beliefs.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Asmodeus3

And IFR in developed countries could be ten times that rate.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Which seems far more relevant.

Could have been in the past in some countries. After 3 years of exposure this is very very unlikely. But the IFR on its own which was always low to start with, could have never been the main reason for lockdowns and various restrictions. These 'things' were never justified. They were political measures and not epidemiological measures and that is why they have failed.

1% IFR in the US would be three million plus deaths.

That not justifying measures might be your opinion, many others would disagree.

this cannot be stated as fact yet, but those who think a little, questioned why and how the flu was totally gone while Covid was here, and some of us, think it's possible it didn't really go away, but was lumped into the covid numbers, to make covid look like it was the deadliest thing evar. You are free to believe the official narrative as you most certainly will, but one day, you may have to look back and wonder how you were to easily led down the wrong path.

Excess deaths went up at the same time.

If Flu was repacked into covid the it would also have been the most deadly flu season in a century. Which would beg the question why not say its the flu?

One day you may have to look back and wonder why you believed irational conspiracy theories that so easily led you down the wrong path.

and what if covid was a little bad, but once coupled with flu and other illnesses that used to exist, was all called "covid". I don't need you to believe me, I just like to have the placeholder here so when and if it's as I suspect, I can use it to show you how easily led you are. And I'm a conspiracy nut, behaving like a conspiracy nut. So I don't fear any reckoning from boot lickers. I'm crazy baby.

Doesn't explain the increase in excess deaths.

It's funny however that you think it's conspiracy theorists who aren't easily led.

Wait, coupling COVID with all the nasties we usually get would not explain an increase in excess deaths?

Your DERP is moving too rapidly for your posts. Slow that DERP down.

Try thinking about that for a moment.

You might want to reallocate the DERP.

Let me know if/when you get it.

nope, been thinking on it a bit now. let's see if you can pinpoint my flaw in logic. Say 200,000 people a year die from flu, averaged over 7 years. (hypothetical numbers)
But in 2021 250,000 died from Covid and 23 died from flu.

A person such as myself would think, "after hearing how piss poor the testing was, and knowing how hard "they" wanted to to pump up the covid numbers, it looks like covid was mildly deadly, and they rebranded the flu deaths as covid."

So seeing as how you have doubled down on the DERP, it's now up to you to explain to me why that line of thinking is so far off the mark.

Good luck sport.

I said that doesn't explain excess deaths. You also said excess deaths in your reply

So to use your numbers.

200,000 people a year die from flu on average.

In 2020 they get 50,000 covid deaths and relabel the 200,000 flu deaths as covid to give you 250,000 covid deaths.

How many extra deaths are there?

A. 250,000
B. 50,000
C. Derp.


Showing your workings is optional.

50,000

Your point evades me. Explain it link you are 8 years old.

Here is what you said.

Wait, coupling COVID with all the nasties we usually get would not explain an increase in excess deaths?

Now I take it from your correct answer above you get that rebranding flu as covid doesn't actually increase excess deaths?

astounding epic fail. Kudos for that. I explained it the same way several times, it just took you several tries to comprehend it, and you smugly thought you had some kind of win because of it. Typical for you. Thanks for providing the DERP yet again.

rebranding the flu as covid makes the 50,000 covid deaths look like 250,000 covid deaths, all while thinking the world won't notice the flu deaths went away. Again, DERP. Ill petition for a crayon font for our next meeting.

You said exees deaths (as quoted) while responding to me saying it didn't explain excess deaths.

The fail and DERP are all yours I am afraid.

You could have a little dignity and admit you made a mistake. Sadly that seems beyond you these days.

Speaking of mistakes you have your arguments getting refuted continuously so asking others to admit hypothetical mistakes is just hilarious.

So for once more

The number that describes how deadly a disease is, is given by the global average IFR. And not by local IFRs or IFRs by age group

Hence the IFR of Spanish Flu was 10%
And the IFR of Covid-19 was 0.15%

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Asmodeus3



UK 1·568%Text

Seems higher than the 0.15% you keep quoting.

You seem to be confused on what IFR or don't want to understand it's meaning.

0.15% is the global average IFR.

To use other numbers to justify your political ideological narratives is absurd. Anyone else can do the same thing by using a smaller figure then the average and go by this figure in a given country.

Yes global IFR. (Not an average by the way).

Conclusions:

All systematic evaluations of seroprevalence data converge that SARS-CoV-2 infection is widely spread globally. Acknowledging residual uncertainties, the available evidence suggests average global IFR of ~0.15% and ~1.5-2.0 billion infections by February 2021 with substantial differences in IFR and in infection spread across continents, countries and locations.

For once more you don't even read what is linked.

Average global IFR of 0.15%

If its an average its even less accurate.

IFR is deaths divided by estimated infections. That isn't an average on your population.

I suspect he is just using average as phrase however.

You claimed it wasn't an average above. Now you change it? It seems you don't read anything.

I'm not changing it. I said it isnt an average both times.

Conclusions:

All systematic evaluations of seroprevalence data converge that SARS-CoV-2 infection is widely spread globally. Acknowledging residual uncertainties, the available evidence suggests average global IFR of ~0.15% and ~1.5-2.0 billion infections by February 2021 with substantial differences in IFR and in infection spread across continents, countries and locations.

See above.

Average global IFR = 0.15%

There is a reason for estimating IFR this way so to see how deadly a disease is.

In comparison the Spanish Flu had an IFR of 10% and the Russian 'Flu' of 1889-1890 for which I made a thread sometime ago had a similar IFR to Covid-19 as it likely caused by human coronavirus OC43

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: tanstaafl
High amplification does not return any higher false positives than correct and reasonable levels of amplification.

That false statement right there disqualifies you from speaking further on the subject. Your ignorance is overshadowed only by your petty-tyrant-wanna-be arrogance.

Each amplification cycle increases the amounts of the genomic sequences (it practically doubles at each cycle) in the test sample.

Prior to amplification, there isn't enough of the genomic sequence in the test sample to be able to confirm the existence of the sequence by chemical assay (these days done by exposing the optical properties of the test solution, but in the old days they used electrophoresis).

Also, the genomic sequence is a very specific and complex thing. Amplification will not replicate a genomic sequence that is not there. Nor can amplification spontaneously generate a genomic sequence. If it amplifies, it was there in the test sample and was a genomic sequence (not a chemical or other non-genomic compound). Amplification does not increase anything in the sample other than the genomic sequences present.

Once the abundances of genomic sequences are increased to readable levels, there is no need to keep amplifying the test solution. You won't start finding things that weren't there in the test sample. So excessive amplification is a waste of time.

Nor will excessive amplification make a non-existent genomic sequence suddenly come into being, and give a false positive. If it isn't there, it cannot be duplicated (amplified).

I think most of the problem in popular thinking is the use of the word "amplification". If they had called it 'sequence duplication' instead, I think there would have been a better conceptualization of the process in the mind of the general public.

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: tanstaafl

Each amplification cycle increases the amounts of the genomic sequences (it practically doubles at each cycle) in the test sample.

Again, your arro/ignorance is amazing.

I'll defer to the person who actually created the PCR test as to how useless it is as a diagnostic tool, and how using too high of an amplification setting will render any results as meaninglessly useless.

But by all means... carry on.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Asmodeus3

And IFR in developed countries could be ten times that rate.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Which seems far more relevant.

Could have been in the past in some countries. After 3 years of exposure this is very very unlikely. But the IFR on its own which was always low to start with, could have never been the main reason for lockdowns and various restrictions. These 'things' were never justified. They were political measures and not epidemiological measures and that is why they have failed.

1% IFR in the US would be three million plus deaths.

That not justifying measures might be your opinion, many others would disagree.

this cannot be stated as fact yet, but those who think a little, questioned why and how the flu was totally gone while Covid was here, and some of us, think it's possible it didn't really go away, but was lumped into the covid numbers, to make covid look like it was the deadliest thing evar. You are free to believe the official narrative as you most certainly will, but one day, you may have to look back and wonder how you were to easily led down the wrong path.

Excess deaths went up at the same time.

If Flu was repacked into covid the it would also have been the most deadly flu season in a century. Which would beg the question why not say its the flu?

One day you may have to look back and wonder why you believed irational conspiracy theories that so easily led you down the wrong path.

and what if covid was a little bad, but once coupled with flu and other illnesses that used to exist, was all called "covid". I don't need you to believe me, I just like to have the placeholder here so when and if it's as I suspect, I can use it to show you how easily led you are. And I'm a conspiracy nut, behaving like a conspiracy nut. So I don't fear any reckoning from boot lickers. I'm crazy baby.

Doesn't explain the increase in excess deaths.

It's funny however that you think it's conspiracy theorists who aren't easily led.

Wait, coupling COVID with all the nasties we usually get would not explain an increase in excess deaths?

Your DERP is moving too rapidly for your posts. Slow that DERP down.

Try thinking about that for a moment.

You might want to reallocate the DERP.

Let me know if/when you get it.

nope, been thinking on it a bit now. let's see if you can pinpoint my flaw in logic. Say 200,000 people a year die from flu, averaged over 7 years. (hypothetical numbers)
But in 2021 250,000 died from Covid and 23 died from flu.

A person such as myself would think, "after hearing how piss poor the testing was, and knowing how hard "they" wanted to to pump up the covid numbers, it looks like covid was mildly deadly, and they rebranded the flu deaths as covid."

So seeing as how you have doubled down on the DERP, it's now up to you to explain to me why that line of thinking is so far off the mark.

Good luck sport.

I said that doesn't explain excess deaths. You also said excess deaths in your reply

So to use your numbers.

200,000 people a year die from flu on average.

In 2020 they get 50,000 covid deaths and relabel the 200,000 flu deaths as covid to give you 250,000 covid deaths.

How many extra deaths are there?

A. 250,000
B. 50,000
C. Derp.


Showing your workings is optional.

50,000

Your point evades me. Explain it link you are 8 years old.

Here is what you said.

Wait, coupling COVID with all the nasties we usually get would not explain an increase in excess deaths?

Now I take it from your correct answer above you get that rebranding flu as covid doesn't actually increase excess deaths?

astounding epic fail. Kudos for that. I explained it the same way several times, it just took you several tries to comprehend it, and you smugly thought you had some kind of win because of it. Typical for you. Thanks for providing the DERP yet again.

rebranding the flu as covid makes the 50,000 covid deaths look like 250,000 covid deaths, all while thinking the world won't notice the flu deaths went away. Again, DERP. Ill petition for a crayon font for our next meeting.

You said exees deaths (as quoted) while responding to me saying it didn't explain excess deaths.

The fail and DERP are all yours I am afraid.

You could have a little dignity and admit you made a mistake. Sadly that seems beyond you these days.

Speaking of mistakes you have your arguments getting refuted continuously so asking others to admit hypothetical mistakes is just hilarious.

So for once more

The number that describes how deadly a disease is, is given by the global average IFR. And not by local IFRs or IFRs by age group

Hence the IFR of Spanish Flu was 10%
And the IFR of Covid-19 was 0.15%

Isn't thete t&c against spam posting the same things over and over?

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Asmodeus3

And IFR in developed countries could be ten times that rate.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Which seems far more relevant.

Could have been in the past in some countries. After 3 years of exposure this is very very unlikely. But the IFR on its own which was always low to start with, could have never been the main reason for lockdowns and various restrictions. These 'things' were never justified. They were political measures and not epidemiological measures and that is why they have failed.

1% IFR in the US would be three million plus deaths.

That not justifying measures might be your opinion, many others would disagree.

this cannot be stated as fact yet, but those who think a little, questioned why and how the flu was totally gone while Covid was here, and some of us, think it's possible it didn't really go away, but was lumped into the covid numbers, to make covid look like it was the deadliest thing evar. You are free to believe the official narrative as you most certainly will, but one day, you may have to look back and wonder how you were to easily led down the wrong path.

Excess deaths went up at the same time.

If Flu was repacked into covid the it would also have been the most deadly flu season in a century. Which would beg the question why not say its the flu?

One day you may have to look back and wonder why you believed irational conspiracy theories that so easily led you down the wrong path.

and what if covid was a little bad, but once coupled with flu and other illnesses that used to exist, was all called "covid". I don't need you to believe me, I just like to have the placeholder here so when and if it's as I suspect, I can use it to show you how easily led you are. And I'm a conspiracy nut, behaving like a conspiracy nut. So I don't fear any reckoning from boot lickers. I'm crazy baby.

Doesn't explain the increase in excess deaths.

It's funny however that you think it's conspiracy theorists who aren't easily led.

Wait, coupling COVID with all the nasties we usually get would not explain an increase in excess deaths?

Your DERP is moving too rapidly for your posts. Slow that DERP down.

Try thinking about that for a moment.

You might want to reallocate the DERP.

Let me know if/when you get it.

nope, been thinking on it a bit now. let's see if you can pinpoint my flaw in logic. Say 200,000 people a year die from flu, averaged over 7 years. (hypothetical numbers)
But in 2021 250,000 died from Covid and 23 died from flu.

A person such as myself would think, "after hearing how piss poor the testing was, and knowing how hard "they" wanted to to pump up the covid numbers, it looks like covid was mildly deadly, and they rebranded the flu deaths as covid."

So seeing as how you have doubled down on the DERP, it's now up to you to explain to me why that line of thinking is so far off the mark.

Good luck sport.

I said that doesn't explain excess deaths. You also said excess deaths in your reply

So to use your numbers.

200,000 people a year die from flu on average.

In 2020 they get 50,000 covid deaths and relabel the 200,000 flu deaths as covid to give you 250,000 covid deaths.

How many extra deaths are there?

A. 250,000
B. 50,000
C. Derp.


Showing your workings is optional.

50,000

Your point evades me. Explain it link you are 8 years old.

Here is what you said.

Wait, coupling COVID with all the nasties we usually get would not explain an increase in excess deaths?

Now I take it from your correct answer above you get that rebranding flu as covid doesn't actually increase excess deaths?

astounding epic fail. Kudos for that. I explained it the same way several times, it just took you several tries to comprehend it, and you smugly thought you had some kind of win because of it. Typical for you. Thanks for providing the DERP yet again.

rebranding the flu as covid makes the 50,000 covid deaths look like 250,000 covid deaths, all while thinking the world won't notice the flu deaths went away. Again, DERP. Ill petition for a crayon font for our next meeting.

You said exees deaths (as quoted) while responding to me saying it didn't explain excess deaths.

The fail and DERP are all yours I am afraid.

You could have a little dignity and admit you made a mistake. Sadly that seems beyond you these days.

Speaking of mistakes you have your arguments getting refuted continuously so asking others to admit hypothetical mistakes is just hilarious.

So for once more

The number that describes how deadly a disease is, is given by the global average IFR. And not by local IFRs or IFRs by age group

Hence the IFR of Spanish Flu was 10%
And the IFR of Covid-19 was 0.15%

Isn't thete t&c against spam posting the same things over and over?

It's funny when you're losing the argument (actually have been thoroughly exposed) that you start crying TC.

WAHHHH T and C. They're mean I was exposed!

gtfo

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Asmodeus3

And IFR in developed countries could be ten times that rate.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Which seems far more relevant.

Could have been in the past in some countries. After 3 years of exposure this is very very unlikely. But the IFR on its own which was always low to start with, could have never been the main reason for lockdowns and various restrictions. These 'things' were never justified. They were political measures and not epidemiological measures and that is why they have failed.

1% IFR in the US would be three million plus deaths.

That not justifying measures might be your opinion, many others would disagree.

this cannot be stated as fact yet, but those who think a little, questioned why and how the flu was totally gone while Covid was here, and some of us, think it's possible it didn't really go away, but was lumped into the covid numbers, to make covid look like it was the deadliest thing evar. You are free to believe the official narrative as you most certainly will, but one day, you may have to look back and wonder how you were to easily led down the wrong path.

Excess deaths went up at the same time.

If Flu was repacked into covid the it would also have been the most deadly flu season in a century. Which would beg the question why not say its the flu?

One day you may have to look back and wonder why you believed irational conspiracy theories that so easily led you down the wrong path.

and what if covid was a little bad, but once coupled with flu and other illnesses that used to exist, was all called "covid". I don't need you to believe me, I just like to have the placeholder here so when and if it's as I suspect, I can use it to show you how easily led you are. And I'm a conspiracy nut, behaving like a conspiracy nut. So I don't fear any reckoning from boot lickers. I'm crazy baby.

Doesn't explain the increase in excess deaths.

It's funny however that you think it's conspiracy theorists who aren't easily led.

Wait, coupling COVID with all the nasties we usually get would not explain an increase in excess deaths?

Your DERP is moving too rapidly for your posts. Slow that DERP down.

Try thinking about that for a moment.

You might want to reallocate the DERP.

Let me know if/when you get it.

nope, been thinking on it a bit now. let's see if you can pinpoint my flaw in logic. Say 200,000 people a year die from flu, averaged over 7 years. (hypothetical numbers)
But in 2021 250,000 died from Covid and 23 died from flu.

A person such as myself would think, "after hearing how piss poor the testing was, and knowing how hard "they" wanted to to pump up the covid numbers, it looks like covid was mildly deadly, and they rebranded the flu deaths as covid."

So seeing as how you have doubled down on the DERP, it's now up to you to explain to me why that line of thinking is so far off the mark.

Good luck sport.

I said that doesn't explain excess deaths. You also said excess deaths in your reply

So to use your numbers.

200,000 people a year die from flu on average.

In 2020 they get 50,000 covid deaths and relabel the 200,000 flu deaths as covid to give you 250,000 covid deaths.

How many extra deaths are there?

A. 250,000
B. 50,000
C. Derp.


Showing your workings is optional.

50,000

Your point evades me. Explain it link you are 8 years old.

Here is what you said.

Wait, coupling COVID with all the nasties we usually get would not explain an increase in excess deaths?

Now I take it from your correct answer above you get that rebranding flu as covid doesn't actually increase excess deaths?

astounding epic fail. Kudos for that. I explained it the same way several times, it just took you several tries to comprehend it, and you smugly thought you had some kind of win because of it. Typical for you. Thanks for providing the DERP yet again.

rebranding the flu as covid makes the 50,000 covid deaths look like 250,000 covid deaths, all while thinking the world won't notice the flu deaths went away. Again, DERP. Ill petition for a crayon font for our next meeting.

You said exees deaths (as quoted) while responding to me saying it didn't explain excess deaths.

The fail and DERP are all yours I am afraid.

You could have a little dignity and admit you made a mistake. Sadly that seems beyond you these days.

Speaking of mistakes you have your arguments getting refuted continuously so asking others to admit hypothetical mistakes is just hilarious.

So for once more

The number that describes how deadly a disease is, is given by the global average IFR. And not by local IFRs or IFRs by age group

Hence the IFR of Spanish Flu was 10%
And the IFR of Covid-19 was 0.15%

Isn't thete t&c against spam posting the same things over and over?

It's funny when you're losing the argument (actually have been thoroughly exposed) that you start crying TC.

WAHHHH T and C. They're mean I was exposed!

gtfo

Sorry I didn't realise you were the offical ATS score keeper.

I was actually just pointing out how boring and pointless repeat posts are. The only only thing they expose is the limits of person posting.

originally posted by: ScepticScot


I do agree it would take a true idiot to get your point. Maybe if we keep to numbers that you can do with your socks on.

If you have 5 deaths per year average then you get 1 more death you know have 6. 1 excess death.

If you have 5 deaths per year and you call one of those deaths covid, ebola or terminal DERPness you still have 5 deaths. 0 excess deaths.

Renaming deaths does not create excess deaths.

As we had a major increase in excess deaths in 2020 then it is not explained by your theory of Flu being called Covid.

I swear I would have thought my last post was clear enough, but since you brought up the small number aspect, I think we have found the disconnect and I can finally clear this up for you. Using your numbers.

OK, so on average 5 people each year die from flu, cold, and respiratory illness. (with me so far?)

in 2021 6 people died from Covid. 0 from flu.

Now we have seen an increase in deaths. Covid has killed some people it seems. But the flu was cured. Now I can go into all the reasons we are told why we cured the flu, but for this discussion, none of that matters, only that my curiosity revolves around how the numbers seem to have been adjusted to favor covid deaths.

So in conclusion, 1 more person died than the average, but 5 people who would normally have died from flu, now died from covid. If that isn't clear, go find a 1st grade class and show them this. They should be able to work with you.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
The only only thing they expose is the limits of person posting.

in light of your repeated attempts to pretend like I'm the one who doesn't understand this, your post is to #ing funny. Thanks for the humor.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ScepticScot


I do agree it would take a true idiot to get your point. Maybe if we keep to numbers that you can do with your socks on.

If you have 5 deaths per year average then you get 1 more death you know have 6. 1 excess death.

If you have 5 deaths per year and you call one of those deaths covid, ebola or terminal DERPness you still have 5 deaths. 0 excess deaths.

Renaming deaths does not create excess deaths.

As we had a major increase in excess deaths in 2020 then it is not explained by your theory of Flu being called Covid.

I swear I would have thought my last post was clear enough, but since you brought up the small number aspect, I think we have found the disconnect and I can finally clear this up for you. Using your numbers.

OK, so on average 5 people each year die from flu, cold, and respiratory illness. (with me so far?)

in 2021 6 people died from Covid. 0 from flu.

Now we have seen an increase in deaths. Covid has killed some people it seems. But the flu was cured. Now I can go into all the reasons we are told why we cured the flu, but for this discussion, none of that matters, only that my curiosity revolves around how the numbers seem to have been adjusted to favor covid deaths.

So in conclusion, 1 more person died than the average, but 5 people who would normally have died from flu, now died from covid. If that isn't clear, go find a 1st grade class and show them this. They should be able to work with you.

So we get back to reclassifying flu deaths as covid doesn't increase the excess deaths.

Excess deaths actually increased by more than the covid death counts. By your theory it should be much less. Sorry your pet theory makes no sense.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ScepticScot
The only only thing they expose is the limits of person posting.

in light of your repeated attempts to pretend like I'm the one who doesn't understand this, your post is to #ing funny. Thanks for the humor.