5 ms·
> this last point is not part of miss-categorization point I was replying to Yes, you're right, and I realized that just as I made the post. But I still don't
by ceilingcorner 6y ago
> this last point is not part of miss-categorization point I was replying to
Yes, you're right, and I realized that just as I made the post. But I still don't think that normal rates of death automatically equal coronavirus didn't kill anyone.
- simion314 6y agoYou will have a margin of error , my main point is that even if some politicians will push too miss=categorize the deaths, if the numbers are sufficiently large things can't be hidden that way. Do you have any statistics that show that if I die of COVID then this imply that my probability to live 1 more year was very slim without COVID? This kind of number as less then 1 year seems very non-scientific and more something you would use to push your opinion, like yes 400K people died but 99% of them would ahve been dead anyway in a few months
- soco 6y agoOn a related topic "City [St Petersburg] issues 1,552 more death certificates in May than last year, but Covid-19 toll was 171" https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/04/st-petersburg-death-tally-casts-doubt-on-russian-coronavirus-figures https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/04/st-petersburg-...