4 ms·

> people still trot out “4% kill rate” Which health authority or public health expert is claiming that today and hasn't shared updates with better data (=good

by detaro 5y ago

> people still trot out “4% kill rate” Which health authority or public health expert is claiming that today and hasn't shared updates with better data (=good news)? Yes, some people still bring that, but that's not because evil experts hide the true data from them.

Covzire 5y ago
I think you discount the idea of "evil experts" too quickly. The day Joe Biden took over the presidency, CNN stopped listing death counts for COVID. The deaths increased in 2021 precipitously, had it been Trump you know they would have probably used bigger fonts, colors etc to drive the narrative. There are evil people and some of them are in control of various parts of the narrative and they use that control for their own ends.
- concordDance 5y ago
  The problem here is treating partisan news sites as experts.
spookthesunset 5y ago
The “experts” don’t say “4%” but they also don’t even bother to give an actual IFR. Why haven’t they? We’ve known it for quite some time.
- detaro 5y ago
  Media reports about updated risk estimates are easy to find? I guess it's not so much one catchy number anymore and instead goes in more detail regarding age/risk groups, but that's a good thing given how vague an average number is over such a large span? And I'd argue easier to understand what it means than the average number. I guess you can always argue "but it's not properly explained and people don't understand it!!!", but so much information people keep claiming is hidden is just there and repeated in news reports once you read past the headlines. And at some point people need to deal with the fact that data is messy and not all numbers agree or mean the same thing and that that has reasons. I feel that goes back to the title of the submission here.
- whimsicalism 5y ago
  > IFR. Why haven’t they? We’ve known it for quite some time. Well, it's not constant. Vaccination rates have a big impact. And honestly, what "experts" are you even talking about? Of course the numbers are out there.

by detaro 5y ago

Covzire 5y ago

I think you discount the idea of "evil experts" too quickly. The day Joe Biden took over the presidency, CNN stopped listing death counts for COVID. The deaths increased in 2021 precipitously, had it been Trump you know they would have probably used bigger fonts, colors etc to drive the narrative. There are evil people and some of them are in control of various parts of the narrative and they use that control for their own ends.

concordDance 5y ago
The problem here is treating partisan news sites as experts.

spookthesunset 5y ago

The “experts” don’t say “4%” but they also don’t even bother to give an actual IFR. Why haven’t they? We’ve known it for quite some time.

detaro 5y ago
Media reports about updated risk estimates are easy to find? I guess it's not so much one catchy number anymore and instead goes in more detail regarding age/risk groups, but that's a good thing given how vague an average number is over such a large span? And I'd argue easier to understand what it means than the average number. I guess you can always argue "but it's not properly explained and people don't understand it!!!", but so much information people keep claiming is hidden is just there and repeated in news reports once you read past the headlines. And at some point people need to deal with the fact that data is messy and not all numbers agree or mean the same thing and that that has reasons. I feel that goes back to the title of the submission here.
whimsicalism 5y ago
> IFR. Why haven’t they? We’ve known it for quite some time. Well, it's not constant. Vaccination rates have a big impact. And honestly, what "experts" are you even talking about? Of course the numbers are out there.