3 ms·

Because the data isn't random enough? They've done random studies in a bunch of places, including germany and california and the IFR is about 0.2% - 0.38% and i

Because the data isn't random enough? They've done random studies in a bunch of places, including germany and california and the IFR is about 0.2% - 0.38% and it keeps getting lower. There's no way in hell the IFR is 1.3%, that's just media sensationalism .

chowchowchow 6y ago
I mean, it’s not media sensationalism to point out 13 of the ~1000 people on that ship who tested positive died. You’re so heated about your media preoccupation that you’re calling facts media sensationalism while trying to present as making a rational case.
- steveeq1 6y ago
  Of course it's media sensationalism. As an exaggerated example, if I went to people who are all on stage4 cancer, and give them the corona virus, and 20% of them die, cnn will post something like "the corona virus kills 20% of people based on that sample!" "Swine flu's" eventual death count ended up being 10x lower than what "the news" was initially predicting.
  - chowchowchow 6y ago
    So your argument is that the recorded death toll and infection count from the boat is media sensationalism. (I don’t recall reading it was a cruise for stage 4 cancer patients. Darn media)
    - steveeq1 6y ago
      I said "exaggerated example". And the cruise had a hugely disproportionate number of elderly people, which skews the "random" sample. So yes, it's media sensationalism.
      - chowchowchow 6y ago
        The “it” you are taking about is a straw man interpretation. The figures are what they are. I never said the ship data proves that IFR is 1.3%, you just seem to have gotten triggered and said pointing out some evidence which could help determine what the IFR may be constitutes media sensationalism. BTW if the at risk population is 10% and the IFR for that population is 10% and 0% for everyone else, and infections are spread evenly, that works out to 1% IFR. You have some things you’re very frustrated by, I can tell, but your attempt to substantiate your emotions with data criticism is not successful.
        steveeq1 6y ago
        The true IFR rate is nowhere near 1.3% or even 1%. This, in the same way that the new york true "death toll" is nowhere near what they are reporting. It's a plain-old case of "man shot nine times dies of corona virus" headlines. These are just wildly exaggerated numbers through intellectually dishonest sampling that the media is incentivized to give.
        chowchowchow 6y ago
        You're just repeating assertions without basis.
        steveeq1 6y ago
        My "basis" is peer-review academic journals. Not commercial media sources who are incentivized to sensationalize the numbers.
        chowchowchow 6y ago
        Of course it is.

chowchowchow 6y ago

I mean, it’s not media sensationalism to point out 13 of the ~1000 people on that ship who tested positive died. You’re so heated about your media preoccupation that you’re calling facts media sensationalism while trying to present as making a rational case.

steveeq1 6y ago
Of course it's media sensationalism. As an exaggerated example, if I went to people who are all on stage4 cancer, and give them the corona virus, and 20% of them die, cnn will post something like "the corona virus kills 20% of people based on that sample!" "Swine flu's" eventual death count ended up being 10x lower than what "the news" was initially predicting.
- chowchowchow 6y ago
  So your argument is that the recorded death toll and infection count from the boat is media sensationalism. (I don’t recall reading it was a cruise for stage 4 cancer patients. Darn media)
  - steveeq1 6y ago
    I said "exaggerated example". And the cruise had a hugely disproportionate number of elderly people, which skews the "random" sample. So yes, it's media sensationalism.
    - chowchowchow 6y ago
      The “it” you are taking about is a straw man interpretation. The figures are what they are. I never said the ship data proves that IFR is 1.3%, you just seem to have gotten triggered and said pointing out some evidence which could help determine what the IFR may be constitutes media sensationalism. BTW if the at risk population is 10% and the IFR for that population is 10% and 0% for everyone else, and infections are spread evenly, that works out to 1% IFR. You have some things you’re very frustrated by, I can tell, but your attempt to substantiate your emotions with data criticism is not successful.
      - steveeq1 6y ago
        The true IFR rate is nowhere near 1.3% or even 1%. This, in the same way that the new york true "death toll" is nowhere near what they are reporting. It's a plain-old case of "man shot nine times dies of corona virus" headlines. These are just wildly exaggerated numbers through intellectually dishonest sampling that the media is incentivized to give.
        chowchowchow 6y ago
        You're just repeating assertions without basis.
        steveeq1 6y ago
        My "basis" is peer-review academic journals. Not commercial media sources who are incentivized to sensationalize the numbers.
        chowchowchow 6y ago
        Of course it is.