3 ms·
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.
by 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 agoMedia 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.