3 ms·

That's a common question from specific political circles, and I'm wondering if it's one of those "thought-terminating cliches" we read about the other day. Bec

That's a common question from specific political circles, and I'm wondering if it's one of those "thought-terminating cliches" we read about the other day. Because the fatality rate of COVID-19 hasn't been 0.2% for over a year now; currently it sits at about 1.7% and rising. (edit to specify that these numbers refer to the US only) But even setting that aside, the long-term effect of this disease ranges from "had it, got over it, fine now" to "can't breathe properly a year later, possibly ever again." Approximately 30% of COVID-19-infected patients are still ill over a month later. Finally, I live in an area where the Delta variant is having some kind of field day. I am currently pet-sitting for an elderly neighbor; she had a minor fall and broke her ankle. The nearest available hospital bed was about three hundred miles away, because COVID-19 has overwhelmed my city's medical infrastructure. My question is, do you really think that death is the only negative consequence of a disease?

nradov 5y ago
Please stop spreading misinformation about a serious subject. CDC data shows that the fatality rate in the US has been 0.6% since the beginning of the pandemic, so your claim of 1.7% is simply a lie. And fatality rates for vaccinated people are virtually zero. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/burden.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/burd...
- _Microft 5y ago
  > Please stop spreading misinformation about a serious subject. That's pretty harsh. They are referring to the case fatality rate ("CFR") while you are referring to the estimated infection fatality rate ("IFR"). Edit: OK, I usually don't do that but please tell me in which way parent's comment is possibly better than a comment like this would have been: "Looks like you are referring to the CFR. That's a bad way to measure fatality rate and the CDC has an estimate for the IFR anyways. You can find it here."
hume_annoyed 5y ago
Your comment reminds me that someone on the thread about "thought-terminating cliches" mentioned that the phrase is an autonym, itself an example of the phenomenon it describes.

nradov 5y ago

Please stop spreading misinformation about a serious subject. CDC data shows that the fatality rate in the US has been 0.6% since the beginning of the pandemic, so your claim of 1.7% is simply a lie. And fatality rates for vaccinated people are virtually zero. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/burden.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/burd...

_Microft 5y ago
> Please stop spreading misinformation about a serious subject. That's pretty harsh. They are referring to the case fatality rate ("CFR") while you are referring to the estimated infection fatality rate ("IFR"). Edit: OK, I usually don't do that but please tell me in which way parent's comment is possibly better than a comment like this would have been: "Looks like you are referring to the CFR. That's a bad way to measure fatality rate and the CDC has an estimate for the IFR anyways. You can find it here."

hume_annoyed 5y ago

Your comment reminds me that someone on the thread about "thought-terminating cliches" mentioned that the phrase is an autonym, itself an example of the phenomenon it describes.