steveeq1

9 ms·

31.
by steveeq1 6y ago
My "basis" is peer-review academic journals. Not commercial media sources who are incentivized to sensationalize the numbers.
32.
by 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&quo
33.
by 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.
34.
by 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 peo
35.
by steveeq1 6y ago
I have family members that "are severely at risk", which is why I am self-infecting then quarantining. That way, antibodies form naturally and I can't spread it to anyone, including my family and yours. And the IFR keeps goin
36.
by steveeq1 6y ago
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%, th
37.
by steveeq1 6y ago
But the media is known to put misleading articles because it generates more ratings. This is no different.
38.
by steveeq1 6y ago
We are going to have nowhere near 1-2 million deaths from this. and the IFR range is around 0.2%, not 0.5 - 1%. And of course we will get herd immunity soon, with the way exponentials work. We are re-opening the economy! We will reach herd
39.
by steveeq1 6y ago
Stop spreading misinformation. There are studies in South Korea that reinfection does not occur.
40.
by steveeq1 6y ago
The "conspiracy" theory is the news often exaggerates or gives misinformation on a particular subject to fulfill a particular agenda or make more money on ads. This is hardly a conspiracy theory.
41.
by steveeq1 6y ago
Which also can leave stuff out for sensationalistic reasons, which the media is known for. After all the deliberately misleading information from "the news", I no longer take it seriously and instead pay attention to peer-reviewed
42.
by steveeq1 6y ago
The flu is a contagious disease, but you never made a big deal about it until now, at least according to your post history. The only reason you're making a big deal about it is because the media is. The IFR is actually going DOWN, not
43.
by steveeq1 6y ago
"man shot 9 times dies due to corona virus". I question how the media is counting these deaths from corona virus. The infection fatality rate keeps going DOWN not up, in peer-reviewed journals. I suspect its going to end up like s
44.
by steveeq1 6y ago
There's no way that it will reach 1-2 million. My guess is that it will be the same thing like swine flu 10 years ago. The media will print out a sensationalized number, and the real numbers will end up being 10x fewer when calculated
45.
by steveeq1 6y ago
"Man shot 9 times die of corona virus." I question how these numbers are calculated sometimes.
46.
by steveeq1 6y ago
No, it's not a "significant risk". It's basically the flu to the young. The IFR for that age range in good health is basically in the ballpark of the flu, which is a rounding error.
47.
by steveeq1 6y ago
Yes, but the great bulk of evidence pretty much that you won't reinfect once you get it.
48.
by steveeq1 6y ago
Meaning it's not a big deal in any real world way.
49.
by steveeq1 6y ago
But you "roll the dice" with every flu epidemic.
50.
by steveeq1 6y ago
That's an outlier.
51.
by steveeq1 6y ago
Stop spreading misinformation, there were studies in South Korea that say you won't reinfect after you get it. That's why the strong and healthy can help by self-infecting.
52.
by steveeq1 6y ago
> I did the math last week, and 0.2% of New York City had died either from the coronavirus, or from something that was probably the coronavirus "Something PROBABLY was the coronavirus?". So you're from the camp of "s
53.
by steveeq1 6y ago
Oh come on, you can say that for any flu epidemic.
54.
by steveeq1 6y ago
Meh, the lung damage was "mild" in the bulk of the cases.
55.
by steveeq1 6y ago
A "few weeks on the ICU"? Oh come on, that's melodramatic for the great bulk of the cases if you are healthy. You aren't going to spend "weeks" on a ICU, believe me. self-infect and self-quarantine, so you won&
56.
by steveeq1 6y ago
> Spending a few weeks in the ICU is a good way to bankrupt yourself on the path towards returning to regular work, let alone how hard a ventilator is on even survivors. Ok, I'm willing to consider devil's argument, but this is
57.
by steveeq1 6y ago
Yeah, let herd immunity kick in so it's harder for the virus to spread and then STRICTLY quarantine the old. As in much stricter than what they have now. I realize that's not great for grandma, but at some point, society has to ma
58.
by steveeq1 6y ago
Yeah, but strong young healthy won't die from it, but grandma will. Best to self-infect and quarantine so you don't accidentily infect grandma. It's the civil thing to do.
59.
by steveeq1 6y ago
Availability bias. The infection fatality rate of someone in there 20's or even a teenager is basically a rounding error. The strong and healthy dying are the exception, not the rule.
60.
by steveeq1 6y ago
Yes, a vaccine MAY be possible, but the news reports I'm hearing are wildly optimistic at best. It will also take an enormous amount of energy/willpower to quarantine until then. It might be more economically efficient (and conven

More ›