Discussions

The author uses lots of space speicifcally debunking the test positivity rate as a measure of the population (good argument), assumedly because the death rate is supposed to be higher. HOWEVER – then the author says this: “Let’s step away from the nonsense Erickson is pushing and go back to the real data. The latest serostudies and the most recent case and mortality data indicate the same thing we’ve seen, in broad strokes, since we first covered this topic in January. The fatality rate of COVID-19 is much higher than the seasonal flu and somewhat lower than SARS. If it runs rampant through the United States and infects most of the population, the death toll will be much higher than any seasonal flu in history.” This part – “fatality rate of COVID-19 is much higher than the seasonal flu and somewhat lower than SARS” WE DON’T KNOW THE FATALITY RATE.  By the author’s OWN EXPLANATION of how such a rate can be known (most especially the denominator) – until we know the % of the population which is positive…not the % of the population which has been tested.  WE DON’T KNOW THE DEATH RATE.  WE DON’T KNOW THE DENOMINATOR.. The only way you can do this without testing the entire population is as the antibody testing went – random large samples that can assume to be a representation of the entire population. That statement alone – puts the author of this article in the same classification he’s put the doctors – shabby statistical references to make a point about the death rate. OH YEAH – and why is this information “dangewrous”?  This was never explained and doesn’t fit for a scientific rebuttal.  It makes the article look like another media moment of shaming someone.  “Dangerous” is used far too often and NEVER explained.

No activity yet.

The author uses lots of space speicifcally debunking the test positivity rate as a measure of the population (good argument), assumedly because the death rate is supposed to be higher. HOWEVER – then the author says this: “Let’s step away from the nonsense Erickson is pushing and go back to the real data. The latest serostudies and the most recent case and mortality data indicate the same thing we’ve seen, in broad strokes, since we first covered this topic in January. The fatality rate of COVID-19 is much higher than the seasonal flu and somewhat lower than SARS. If it runs rampant through the United States and infects most of the population, the death toll will be much higher than any seasonal flu in history.” This part – “fatality rate of COVID-19 is much higher than the seasonal flu and somewhat lower than SARS” WE DON’T KNOW THE FATALITY RATE.  By the author’s OWN EXPLANATION of how such a rate can be known (most especially the denominator) – until we know the % of the population which is positive…not the % of the population which has been tested.  WE DON’T KNOW THE DEATH RATE.  WE DON’T KNOW THE DENOMINATOR.. The only way you can do this without testing the entire population is as the antibody testing went – random large samples that can assume to be a representation of the entire population. That statement alone – puts the author of this article in the same classification he’s put the doctors – shabby statistical references to make a point about the death rate. OH YEAH – and why is this information “dangewrous”?  This was never explained and doesn’t fit for a scientific rebuttal.  It makes the article look like another media moment of shaming someone.  “Dangerous” is used far too often and NEVER explained.