Colin Powell, military leader and first Black US secretary of state, dies

[Paradoxical]

If people post links it is harder for them to cherry pick stuff and you get to read about the whole subject
and that is why I also try to post the searches I do that way if you want all the info on the subject is there to read
have a nice night

Look, people don't have the time to read a link that may take anywhere from 5 minutes to a half-hour. If you are posting it, you should know what it says by the mere fact that you are posting it. You're the one posting. Not someone else. This is supposed to be a debate site. Not a link slapping up site. Here is rule 9 from this site.

9. Sourced Material - All material being posted from outside of DebatePolitics.com (external material) MUST contain a link to the original source or citation with original author. This applies to all external material, regardless of whether it is copyright protected or not.

In addition, a limitation of 2-3 medium-sized paragraphs per thread is allowed. Proper format is to copy and paste the text of the same-source material, place it inside the 'quote tags' and then offer a link to the material source page for further reading. The 'quote tags' are located in the post creation window.

Admittedly it doesn't say you must include 2 or 3 paragraphs but if someone doesn't, how is the reader supposed to know that the link confirms the opinions and/or points the poster is trying to make? In the past, more than a few posters here have slapped up a link, I broke my rule and read it, and the link doesn't support their positions. Then it's a back and forth time waster where the poster says "Yes, it does" and the reader saying, "No, it doesn't." I've been there, done that. No more.

 

[Paradoxical]

Is that what you think a reasonable adult does? Try to get as much attention as possible just to shit on someone who died?

Please lay out what you think Powell did you eff Trump. Keep in mind voting against him once doesn't count.

I'm sorry he was a RINO and you loved him for it and Trump said his piece about him.

 

[Paradoxical]

Why would I? I am fairly indifferent when it comes to Obama. Half-measures on the stuff he cared about and not much different than Bush when it came to foreign policy. I care even less who Colin Powell voted for.

This is called projection. You think I adore Obama because that is how you feel about Trump and you can't imagine someone else actually being mostly indifferent to a party's flag bearer.

You're a Communist. You are for Big government and control by those in power. That was Obama. Anyone who would vote for him is no Republican and should have changed parties.

From what you folks are saying, when Pelosi ad Schumer die, Trump should laud them.

 

[Tbird19482]

Look, people don't have the time to read a link that may take anywhere from 5 minutes to a half-hour. If you are posting it, you should know what it says by the mere fact that you are posting it. You're the one posting. Not someone else. This is supposed to be a debate site. Not a link slapping up site. Here is rule 9 from this site.

9. Sourced Material - All material being posted from outside of DebatePolitics.com (external material) MUST contain a link to the original source or citation with original author. This applies to all external material, regardless of whether it is copyright protected or not.

In addition, a limitation of 2-3 medium-sized paragraphs per thread is allowed. Proper format is to copy and paste the text of the same-source material, place it inside the 'quote tags' and then offer a link to the material source page for further reading. The 'quote tags' are located in the post creation window.

Admittedly it doesn't say you must include 2 or 3 paragraphs but if someone doesn't, how is the reader supposed to know that the link confirms the opinions and/or points the poster is trying to make? In the past, more than a few posters here have slapped up a link, I broke my rule and read it, and the link doesn't support their positions. Then it's a back and forth time waster where the poster says "Yes, it does" and the reader saying, "No, it doesn't." I've been there, done that. No more.

And IF you ever noticed I will post what I want people to see and read and then I put up usually a search or the link where I found the material
that way people can go and read all about the subject
Have a nice day

 

[Tbird19482]

Look, people don't have the time to read a link that may take anywhere from 5 minutes to a half-hour. If you are posting it, you should know what it says by the mere fact that you are posting it. You're the one posting. Not someone else. This is supposed to be a debate site. Not a link slapping up site. Here is rule 9 from this site.

9. Sourced Material - All material being posted from outside of DebatePolitics.com (external material) MUST contain a link to the original source or citation with original author. This applies to all external material, regardless of whether it is copyright protected or not.

In addition, a limitation of 2-3 medium-sized paragraphs per thread is allowed. Proper format is to copy and paste the text of the same-source material, place it inside the 'quote tags' and then offer a link to the material source page for further reading. The 'quote tags' are located in the post creation window.

Admittedly it doesn't say you must include 2 or 3 paragraphs but if someone doesn't, how is the reader supposed to know that the link confirms the opinions and/or points the poster is trying to make? In the past, more than a few posters here have slapped up a link, I broke my rule and read it, and the link doesn't support their positions. Then it's a back and forth time waster where the poster says "Yes, it does" and the reader saying, "No, it doesn't." I've been there, done that. No more.

Re-reading your post you do see where it says
" 9. Sourced Material - All material being posted from outside of DebatePolitics.com (external material) MUST contain a link to the original source or citation with original author. This applies to all external material, regardless of whether it is copyright protected or not."
doesn't that say " MUST contain a link to the original source or citation with original author."
so when you post something from an outside source and don't provide a link or a citation with the original author you are breaking the rules , most people on here let it go but will ask for a link
Have a nice day

 

[Paradoxical]

And IF you ever noticed I will post what I want people to see and read and then I put up usually a search or the link where I found the material
that way people can go and read all about the subject
Have a nice day

That's not good enough.

 

[Paradoxical]

Re-reading your post you do see where it says
" 9. Sourced Material - All material being posted from outside of DebatePolitics.com (external material) MUST contain a link to the original source or citation with original author. This applies to all external material, regardless of whether it is copyright protected or not."
doesn't that say " MUST contain a link to the original source or citation with original author."
so when you post something from an outside source and don't provide a link or a citation with the original author you are breaking the rules , most people on here let it go but will ask for a link
Have a nice day

Exactly what I posted. Scroll back.

 

[RealityChecker]

2.5 Million Person-Years of Life Have Been Lost Due to COVID-19 in the United States

The COVID-19 pandemic, caused by tens of millions of SARS-CoV-2 infections world-wide, has resulted in considerable levels of mortality and morbidity. The United States has been hit particularly hard having 20 percent of the world’s infections but only 4 percent of the world population...

www.medrxiv.org

From the study:

To assess the impact of COVID-19 in the US, I have performed calculations of person-years of life lost as a result of 194,000 premature deaths due to SARS-CoV-2 infection as of early October, 2020. By combining actuarial data on life expectancy and the distribution of COVID-19 associated deaths we estimate that over 2,500,000 person-years of life have been lost so far in the pandemic in the US alone, averaging over 13.25 years per person with differences noted between males and females. Importantly, nearly half of the potential years of life lost occur in non-elderly populations. Issues impacting refinement of these models and the additional morbidity caused by COVID-19 beyond lethality are discussed.

This article estimated person years of life lost based on age. They assumed a 35y women dying of late stage metastatic breast CA had the same life expectancy as other 35y old women. Clearly people who are very sick are both far more likely to die if they catch the Wuhan virus (or flu) than a healthy person the same age. Therefore the estimate of 13.5y of life lost from catching the Wuhan virus is way too high. Does that help explain why the 2.5 million person years of life lost is far higher than reality.

Do you have any idea what the median life life expectancy for a man after checking into a nursing home was even before this pandemic? Do you think a 75y man in a nursing has the same life expectancy as a 75y old man living independently?

 

[Scrabaholic]

Colin Powell, military leader and first Black US secretary of state, dies after complications from Covid-19

Colin Powell, the first Black US secretary of state whose leadership in several Republican administrations helped shape American foreign policy in the last years of the 20th century and the early years of the 21st, has died from complications from Covid-19, his family said on Facebook. He was 84.

www.cnn.com

Early reports are he did of COVID. No indication if he was vaccinated or not.

RIP.

I always liked him. RIP Colin.

 

[Paradoxical]

This article estimated person years of life lost based on age. They assumed a 35y women dying of late stage metastatic breast CA had the same life expectancy as other 35y old women. Clearly people who are very sick are both far more likely to die if they catch the Wuhan virus (or flu) than a healthy person the same age. Therefore the estimate of 13.5y of life lost from catching the Wuhan virus is way too high. Does that help explain why the 2.5 million person years of life lost is far higher than reality.

Do you have any idea what the median life life expectancy for a man after checking into a nursing home was even before this pandemic? Do you think a 75y man in a nursing has the same life expectancy as a 75y old man living independently?

I am extremely happy that you took the time to analyze how those idiot actuarials (most likely leftists) figured it. I knew they were badly wrong but I didn't feel like taking the time you did to prove it. Thanks.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

This article estimated person years of life lost based on age. They assumed a 35y women dying of late stage metastatic breast CA had the same life expectancy as other 35y old women. Clearly people who are very sick are both far more likely to die if they catch the Wuhan virus (or flu) than a healthy person the same age. Therefore the estimate of 13.5y of life lost from catching the Wuhan virus is way too high. Does that help explain why the 2.5 million person years of life lost is far higher than reality.

Do you have any idea what the median life life expectancy for a man after checking into a nursing home was even before this pandemic? Do you think a 75y man in a nursing has the same life expectancy as a 75y old man living independently?

They take all that into account. And a big part of the reason why the analysis is accurate is because the actuary tables already include information from people who have comorbidities because the actuary tables count everyone who dies, and if they include everyone who dies then that also includes everyone who dies who dies while having diabetes, heart disease, cancer, etc., at the time of their death and before. Does that make sense?

This is how they explain it:

Deaths due to complications with pre-existing comorbid conditions would artificially increase the person-years lost in these calculations but are difficult to quantitate in this current analysis. However, most people over the age of 60 have comorbidities so these are already factored into the longevity tables. For example, one of the largest co-morbidity factors is diabetes (Table 10, 33,100 deaths out of 201,000, or 16.5% of COVID-19 deaths) and diabetes is thought to shorten life expectancy by approximately 8 years per individual and has lowered overall average life expectancy in the US by 0.83 and 0.89 years for males and females, respectively (Preston et al., 2018b). However, the prevalence of diabetes is 10.4% in the general population and its effects on life expectancy has already been factored into the actuarial tables. Thus, approximately 6% of the 194,000 COVID-19 deaths in our analysis, 11,640 in total, are likely due to excess diabetes deaths over the average amount in the population. This would result in an excess of 93,120 person-years, but this would need to be further adjusted for excess deaths per age because on average people over 80 years old have less than 8 years of residual life expectancy. As a result, diabetes may have less than a 4% impact on the current estimates as not all deaths are in individuals with a known co-morbidity.

--

Let me give another example that is not explicitly referenced in the study. If people who died of Covid-19 who and also had comorbidities were the kind of people who would be dying anyway as a result of the comorbidities, the ordinary death rate would be the same. Instead, what do we see? Instead we see hundreds of thousands of excess deaths since the Covid-19 pandemic began. These are people who would still be alive today BUT FOR Covid-19. Maybe these people wouldn't live 30 or 40 years longer. But -- on the whole -- when we look at the 700,000 people who did die, they cannot be the kind of people who we'd expect to keel over and die at any minute. If they were, we'd already see this number of people dying every year in the past. But we don't. Does that make sense?

 

[W_Heisenberg]

It depends what you mean by deadlier and for whom.

By deadly, I mean it kills you.

For a young child there is little question that catching the flu is deadlier than catching SARS-CoV2 (a.k.a. the Wuhan virus). Of course, a young child most likely never had the flu most were not vaccinated against the flu. And for a young children back in 2020, the odds are they never had the Wuhan virus and certainly would not be vaccinated. We know vaccination and/or prior infection primes the immune system and greatly reduce the risk of serious illness and death. The best measure of how deadly a virus is is called the infection fatality rate (IFR). The best estimate of the IFR for the average seasonal flu is about 0.1%. What is the best estimate of the IFR for the Wuhan virus? Well here is the conclusion of world renowned epidemiologist professor John Ioannidis at Stanford University"

"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." Dr. John Ioannidis Here's a link to his study:

From a fact-checker site:

The claim that the fatality rate of COVID-19 is similar to the flu is based on cherry-picked data​

In the video, the journalists from the White House recording claim that the COVID-19 IFR in LA county is between 0.1% and 0.3% and allege that this would be on par with the IFR of the flu.

However, such allegation overlooks the fact the estimation of IFRs of an ongoing pandemic is difficult. Estimating the total number of infections, both detected and undetected, is challenging as the latter group is, by definition, unknown. Depending on the methods used to estimate the total number of infections; different research teams might end up with slightly different IFRs. This is why it is important to take into consideration the whole range of IFR reported in the scientific literature when comparing diseases.

O’Driscoll and colleagues found a COVID-19 IFR of 0.5% for the USA[1]. In a large review of the available literature, Meyerowitz-Katz and Merone reported an IFR of 0.68% with the lowest IFR being 0.17% and the highest 1.7%[2]. The medical news outlet STAT also mentioned a similar IFR of 0.68% in Arizona. Therefore, it appears that a COVID-19 IFR of 0.1% would sit at the lower end of the range of IFR reported in the literature.

As far as the flu is concerned, the estimation of infections and deaths due to seasonal flu for the past years provides a way to determine the IFR. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that 35.5 million people got the flu during the 2018-2019 flu season and 34,200 died from it, which yields an IFR of 0.1%. According to those CDC estimates, the flu IFR ranged from 0.1% to 0.17% from 2014 to 2019.

Therefore, the majority of studies find a COVID-19 IFR that is higher than that of the seasonal flu IFR. The claim that COVID-19 and the seasonal flu have similar IFR is thus an optimistic exaggeration based on cherry-picked data.

The lethality of COVID-19 is much higher than the flu; the Biden press corps didn’t say COVID-19 was a hoax

Infection Fatality Rates measure how many infected people die from a disease. The majority of scientific papers report an Infection Fatality Rate of 0.68% for COVID-19, meaning that 68 people will die from COVID-19 out of 10,000 people who are infected. The fatality from COVID-19 is noticeably...

healthfeedback.org

file:///C:/Users/PritiKin1330/OneDrive/Desktop/eci.13554.pdf

I can't access your PC. Lol. You need to post a reference to a link on the web.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

"Using a statistical model, epidemiologists at Columbia University estimated the infection-fatality rate for New York City based on its massive outbreak from March 1 to May 16. Their results, published online as a non-peer reviewed preprint on June 29, show that the coronavirus may be even deadlier than first thought. According to their data, the COVID-19 infection-fatality rate is 1.46 percent, or twice as high as earlier estimates (and much higher than a misinformed rate being widely shared on social media). This risk varies by age, with those older than 75 [years old] having the highest infection-fatality rate, at 13.83 percent." Carrie Underwood

So is the IFR similar to the seasonal flu (0.1% vs 0.15%) or more than 10X deadlier than the average seasonal flu as estimated by Dr. Wan Yang and colleagues? Of course, the fact is the Wuhan virus, especially back in the March through early May of 2020 when Dr. Wan Yang et. al. gathered data in NYC had a higher IFR because MDs had no idea how to treat it and vaccine were still a long ways off. As you may recall there were a lot of outbreaks in nursing homes and a large fraction of those deaths were among older sicker people in nursing homes. The IFR (for the flu, Wuhan virus, and even colds) is far higher in older people (about 10,000X higher in 85y old compared to 10 year old Americans for the Wuhan virus) and back then Governor Cuomo did not do a very good job at protecting those most likely to die of COVID-19 in nursing homes.

So it appears to me you have been misled about the IFR of the Wuhan virus. And compared to 2020 the IFR for the Wuhan virus for Americans is now significantly lower than it was back in 2020. Why? MDs had few good ideas about how to best treat the Wuhan virus and back then there were no vaccines and no drugs approved by the FDA (even for emergency use) to treat SARS-CoV2 infections. Does that help you better understand what the likely true IFR is for the typical seasonal flu and the SARS-CoV2?

A summary of many studies as indicated in my previous post puts the average IFR of Covid-19 at least one order of magnitude greater than the flu.

And that corresponds to the jump in excess deaths.

And that corresponds to the annualized death toll from Covid-19.

We don't have 480,000 people dying from the flu every year in the U.S.

Now, if you can present a summary of a wide variety of studies and present an average IFR that isn't in the lower range, then maybe you might have a point.

 

[RealityChecker]

A summary of many studies as indicated in my previous post puts the average IFR of Covid-19 at least one order of magnitude greater than the flu.
And that corresponds to the jump in excess deaths.
And that corresponds to the annualized death toll from Covid-19.
We don't have 480,000 people dying from the flu every year in the U.S.

Now, if you can present a summary of a wide variety of studies and present an average IFR that isn't in the lower range, then maybe you might have a point.

Sorry you could not access Dr. John Ioannidis's comprehensive review article. I am better at reading and understanding research but am kind of an idiot when it comes to computers. This is from the March 2021 European Journal of Clinical Investigation titled: Reconciling estimates of global spread and infection fatality rates of COVID-19: An overview of systematic evaluations. See if this link will work for you:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/eci.13554

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Sorry you could not access Dr. John Ioannidis's comprehensive review article. I am better at reading and understanding research but am kind of an idiot when it comes to computers. This is from the March 2021 European Journal of Clinical Investigation titled: Reconciling estimates of global spread and infection fatality rates of COVID-19: An overview of systematic evaluations. See if this link will work for you:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/eci.13554

Oh. This is the dude, who at the very beginning of the pandemic, said only 10,000 people would die from Covid.

Interesting.

So on what basis do you accept this review, but you reject the one I referenced by Meyerowitz-Katz?

 

[The Hairy Fiddler]

Oh. This is the dude, who at the very beginning of the pandemic, said only 10,000 people would die from Covid.

Interesting.

So on what basis do you accept this review, but you reject the one I referenced by Meyerowitz-Katz?

Anyone equating morbidity and mortality of the flu versus covid 19 and calling it a wash is a blooming idiot. Clueless people....all of them. The flu killed appx 120,000 Americans over the past 5 years. Covid killed 725.000 Americans over the past 18 months. Just more Trump crap is all that is.

 

[RealityChecker]

Anyone equating morbidity and mortality of the flu versus covid 19 and calling it a wash is a blooming idiot. Clueless people....all of them. The flu killed appx 120,000 Americans over the past 5 years. Covid killed 725.000 Americans over the past 18 months. Just more Trump crap is all that is.

It appears you may confusing the IFR of the flu [a.k.a. influenza] and this new SARS-CoV2. As far as I can determine the IFRs the flu and SARS-CoV2 do appear to be in the same ballpark. The mistake you [and perhaps W_Heisenberg] may be making is thinking that the IFR alone predicts morbidity and mortality we see in a population that gets exposed to a pathogen. That is simply not correct.

What the IFR actually predicts is the risk of a person who becomes infected with a pathogen ending up dying from that infection. It is a measure of how virulent an infection is but that is very different from predicting how many people will likely die in that population as the virus spreads. You have to also factor in the R0 [a.k.a. R Naught], which is a measure of how contagious the pathogen is.

SARS [now renamed SARS-CoV1] and MERS both had far higher IFRs than this new coronavirus that may have been created at the Wuhan Institute of virology. I believe SARS was close to 10% and MERS might have been 15-20%. The average seasonal flu has an estimated IFR of 0.1 to 0.15%. The IFR of SARS-CoV2 appears to be somewhere between 0.1 to 0.25%, so maybe a bit deadlier as measured by the IFR. But without knowledge of the R0 the IFR alone cannot be used to predict how many people will die from being infected. Here's a good review of what the R0 is if you are more interested in reality than politicizing this debate. If we are going to debate the public policy to a pandemic we need to know both the IFR and the R0. The R0 for the seasonal flu is about 2.0. The R0 for the original SARS-CoV2 (alpha strain) was perhaps closer to 3.0, but that of the new delta variant of SARS-CoV2 is estimated to be a very high 6.0 to 7.0. I will respond to W_Heisenberg's post next (after breakfast), but I think you both would benefit from understanding what both IFR and R0 are. More here:

The Delta variant of COVID-19

One of the major differences between the COVID-19 delta variant and the COVID-19 alpha variant and original strain is how quickly it is spreading. Because it’s so much more contagious, the variant can be easily spread between both unvaccinated and vaccinated people, even if they don’t show any...

www.uchealth.org

 

[W_Heisenberg]

The IFR of SARS-CoV2 appears to be somewhere between 0.1 to 0.25%

Let's be clear, this is the low-ball estimate.

And you have to justify why you think it "appears" to be somewhere between 0.1 to 0.25% and why one should reject the conclusions reached by Meyerowitz-Katz.

As far as I can determine the IFRs the flu and SARS-CoV2 do appear to be in the same ballpark

You are basing this on Loannidis, but his methods have been heavily criticized.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

SARS [now renamed SARS-CoV1] and MERS both had far higher IFRs than this new coronavirus that may have been created at the Wuhan Institute of virology. I believe SARS was close to 10% and MERS might have been 15-20%. The average seasonal flu has an estimated IFR of 0.1 to 0.15%. The IFR of SARS-CoV2 appears to be somewhere between 0.1 to 0.25%, so maybe a bit deadlier as measured by the IFR. But without knowledge of the R0 the IFR alone cannot be used to predict how many people will die from being infected. Here's a good review of what the R0 is if you are more interested in reality than politicizing this debate. If we are going to debate the public policy to a pandemic we need to know both the IFR and the R0. The R0 for the seasonal flu is about 2.0. The R0 for the original SARS-CoV2 (alpha strain) was perhaps closer to 3.0, but that of the new delta variant of SARS-CoV2 is estimated to be a very high 6.0 to 7.0. I will respond to W_Heisenberg's post next (after breakfast), but I think you both would benefit from understanding what both IFR and R0 are. More here:

Loannidis might simply be wrong about the IFR. Have you ever considered that?

We also have other evidence suggesting the Covid-19 is more deadly than the flu. We know what Covid-19 infection does to a human body and it's far worse than the flu. So in addition to statistical evidence, we also have practical, real-world evidence that Covid-19 is more damaging to the human body than the flu. The flu doesn't make you experience a gazillion blood clots all over your body at the same time, for instance, Covid-19 does that.

 

[RealityChecker]

Oh. This is the dude, who at the very beginning of the pandemic, said only 10,000 people would die from Covid.

Dr. Ioannidis did back in March or April of 2020 seriously underestimate the number of Americans who would die from CoVID-19. However, his prediction was way off but not because he was wrong about the IFR of SARS-CoV2. By contrast, many of the doomsayers had IFR estimates that were far in excess of reality. Most media reports were estimating the IFR back then of 3-6% and predicting mortality rates at least a few million Americans in 2020 alone! Clearly both were wrong but for very different reasons. Most of the experts predicting how bad the pandemic would be were grossly over estimating the IFR. So how did Dr. Ioannidis estimate only 10,000 deaths in 2020? He grossly underestimated the R0 and overestimated the ability of social policies to limit the spread. In hindsight, his estimate that only 1% of the population would become infected with the Wuhan virus was clearly way off. But his estimate of the IFR remains close to reality as far as I can tell.

So on what basis do you accept this [Ioannidis] review, but you reject the one I referenced by Meyerowitz-Katz?

Actually, if you read Dr. Ioannidis's article (were you able to access it with the link I provided?] you will see that he explains why the earlier Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz article (which he included in his analysis BTW) likely overestimated the IFR. Keep in mind that if we were to ask Meyerowitz-Katz or Ioannidis today they would both tell us they made errors about the IFR and R0 and the likely impact of public policies would have on containing this pandemic in the US back in the spring and early summer of 2020. Now if you go back and read what I wrote I think you will realize I am not some irrational zealot but a guy who is far more interested in what is right (correct) than a guy who has been duped into believing things that are far right political nonsense.

 

[RealityChecker]

Let's be clear, this [0.1 to 0.25% IFR] is the low-ball estimate.

Actually, it is clearly not, because the IFR of SARS-CoV2 is in reality far lower than was believed back when Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz article came out based on data up to early July 2020 I believe.

And you have to justify why you think it "appears" to be somewhere between 0.1 to 0.25% and why one should reject the conclusions reached by Meyerowitz-Katz.

I have explained already why I think the Meyerowitz-Katz estimate of the IFR was significantly higher than it turned out to be and certainly is far lower than it is today. Today the risk of dying from catching SARS-CoV2 appears no higher than from catching a fairly typical seasonal flu.

You are basing this on Ioannidis, but his methods have been heavily criticized.

I think you may be confusing the valid criticism of Dr. Ioannidis's study in Santa Clara, CA with the results of the article provided the link to [Did the link work and have you had a chance to review it?].

 

[RAMOSS]

Actually, it is clearly not, because the IFR of SARS-CoV2 is in reality far lower than was believed back when Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz article came out based on data up to early July 2020 I believe.

I have explained already why I think the Meyerowitz-Katz estimate of the IFR was significantly higher than it turned out to be and certainly is far lower than it is today. Today the risk of dying from catching SARS-CoV2 appears no higher than from catching a fairly typical seasonal flu.

I think you may be confusing the valid criticism of Dr. Ioannidis's study in Santa Clara, CA with the results of the article provided the link to [Did the link work and have you had a chance to review it?].

You have not made that case. For Dr Lonnidis's numbers to be right, with the number of people who died in the U.S already, we would have to have had a population of over 700M , and every one would have needed to have been infected.

We only have 328M, and not everyone has caught covid.

 

[RealityChecker]

Ioannidis might simply be wrong about the IFR. Have you ever considered that?

Well I already explained he was very wrong about the % of US population to be infected. He estimated 1% or about bit more that 3 million people, but in reality it is likely now more 150 million people. So with the same IFR we'd see about 50X more deaths.

We also have other evidence suggesting the Covid-19 is more deadly than the flu. We know what Covid-19 infection does to a human body and it's far worse than the flu. So in addition to statistical evidence, we also have practical, real-world evidence that Covid-19 is more damaging to the human body than the flu. The flu doesn't make you experience a gazillion blood clots all over your body at the same time, for instance, Covid-19 does that.

Actually, I do not see a big difference between the virulence of SARS-CoV2 and the typical flu. Here's a recent study that suggests the impact of the flu on CVD might be greater than we thought. A lot of those also occur just after they recover from the flu so likely would make the IFR of the seasonal flu a bit higher too. More here:

Flu and heart disease: The surprising connection that should convince you to schedule your shot

Patients who have cardiovascular disease are at increased risk of serious complications from the flu, according to a new study. The study found that not only are traditional flu-related outcomes worse among some patients with CVD, but infection in those patients also is associated with an...

www.sciencedaily.com

 

[Tbird19482]

Exactly what I posted. Scroll back.

Yes you posted PART of what I said
and we see that you didn't bother to read all of my post
seems you missed this
so when you post something from an outside source and don't provide a link or a citation with the original author you are breaking the rules , most people on here let it go but will ask for a link ( that is right from YOUR post )
as I asked " doesn't that say " MUST contain a link to the original source or citation with original author."
and you said you don't post links so aren't you breaking the TOS
so your suppose to provide links when you use info from another source and it is nice to if when you are asked to back up something you say somebody else said
Have a nice day

 

[The Hairy Fiddler]

Loannidis might simply be wrong about the IFR. Have you ever considered that?

We also have other evidence suggesting the Covid-19 is more deadly than the flu. We know what Covid-19 infection does to a human body and it's far worse than the flu. So in addition to statistical evidence, we also have practical, real-world evidence that Covid-19 is more damaging to the human body than the flu. The flu doesn't make you experience a gazillion blood clots all over your body at the same time, for instance, Covid-19 does that.

That falls under the category of morbidity. That is why I posted above that both morbidity and mortality are demonstrably far worse for Covid versus the flu. Reality Checker has no idea what he is talking about.

At least RC attempted to do a little research, as flawed as that research was. Most Trump people don't know what a google button is.