Blah blah blah.... all that aside, I'm hearing more and more folks speak of their admiration for this guy. Several were Trump voters. Hmmmmm. The cat's goin' somewhere, that's for sure. edit. that would be Cuomo in case it wasn't apparent.
Because the messenger is more important than the message to leftist. So here is what you missed... https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...x-lower-than-estimates-that-led-to-lockdowns/ Doctor to Senators: Coronavirus Fatality Rate 10 to 40x Lower than Estimates that Led to Lockdowns One of those studies placed the coronavirus illness’s (COVID-19) infection mortality rate as low as 0.1 percent, similar to that of the flu. A death rate that takes into account the estimated number of mild or asymptomatic infections is known as the infection fatality rate. At least two medical experts testified about the coronavirus infection mortality rate during a hearing held Thursday by the Republican-led Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs on Thursday In written testimony, Dr. Scott Atlas, a senior fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, said, seemingly referring to the infection death rate: By now, multiple studies from Europe, Japan, and the US all suggest that the overall fatality rate is far lower than early estimates, perhaps below 0.1 to 0.4%, i.e., ten to forty times lower than estimates that motivated extreme isolation. Edwin Mora@EdwinMora83 · May 6, 2020 @SWAtlasHoover to @HSGAC: "By now, multiple studies from Europe, Japan, and the US all suggest that the overall fatality rate is far lower than early estimates, perhaps below 0.1 to 0.4%, i.e., ten to forty times lower than estimates that motivated extreme isolation." 1/2 Edwin Mora@EdwinMora83 "Smart, safe re‐entry cannot be delayed by fear or hypothetical projections, because we have direct data on risk and experience with managing it. The goal of the strict isolation has been accomplished." 2/2 17 6:14 PM - May 6, 2020 Twitter Ads info and privacy See Edwin Mora's other Tweets Echoing Atlas, Dr. John Ioannidis, a Stanford University professor of medicine, epidemiology, and population health, as well as of biomedical data science and statistics, explained the difference between “infection fatality rate” and “crude fatality rate” in his written testimony, noting: Shelter-in-place and lockdown orders were justified initially, when announcements declared a new, contagious virus with 3.4% fatality rate and no asymptomatic infections. Prospects of 60 million deaths worldwide led to comparisons against 1918 influenza. However, currently we know that asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic infections are very common. The numbers of people infected are far more than those documented to-date with [the laboratory analysis technique known as] PCR [Polymerase Chain Reaction] testing. Infection fatality rate is accordingly much lower than the crude fatality rates derived from dividing the number of deaths by the number of documented [confirmed] cases. … The fatality rate from COVID-19 is highly dependent on age and modulated by the presence of [underlying medical issues]. For children and young adults, it appears that infection fatality rate is lower than seasonal influenza, and for middle age adults it is about the same. Edwin Mora@EdwinMora83 Dr #Ioannidis to Senators: "For children and young adults, it appears that infection fatality rate is lower than seasonal influenza, and for middle-age adults it is about the same. ... While lockdowns were justified initially, their perpetuation may risk many lives." 19 5:50 PM - May 6, 2020 Twitter Ads info and privacy See Edwin Mora's other Tweets Dr. Ioannidis did warn of a potential second wave and a possible rise in the infection fatality rate among vulnerable segments of the population, namely people in nursing homes and on the frontlines of the battle against coronavirus. He testified: Of course, a second wave cannot yet be excluded. Its occurrence and potential magnitude can only be speculated with mathematical models, but models have not been very successful so far in COVID-19 predictions. Therefore, we need to proceed with caution in lifting lockdown and monitor the impact of any changes in policy measures with real data, as opposed to just using models. … Infection fatality rate can increase sharply, however, when nursing homes are massively infected and when unprepared hospitals are overwhelmed and the infection spreads to hospitalized patients (nosocomial infection). This explains the paradox why COVID-19 is typically a very mild, benign infection, but it also has the potential to become devastating in specific settings. Not all witnesses agreed that the infection fatality rate was similar or lower to the flu’s 0.1 percent. Dr. Tom Inglesby, the director of the Center for Health Security at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, testified that the infection fatality rate is higher than the flu’s, noting in his written testimony: Most studies that have been done calculate the infected fatality rate to be in the .5 to 1% range. For example, this Lancet analysis concluded that there was an infected fatality rate of .66% in China. If .5% of 233 million people were to die from this illness in the US, that would be 1,165,000 deaths. Dr. Inglesby also appeared to disagree with the assessment by Atlas and Ioannidis that lockdowns have achieved their intended purpose. Atlas, the former chief of neuroradiology at the Stanford University Medical Center, told Senators: We also know that total isolation prevents broad population immunity and prolongs the problem. … Smart, safe re‐entry cannot be delayed by fear or hypothetical projections, because we have direct data on risk and experience with managing it. The goal of the strict isolation has been accomplished. Dr. Ioannidis added: While lockdowns were justified initially, their perpetuation may risk many lives. Mental health can be affected with increases in depression, suicides, domestic violence and child abuse. Gun sales have increased. Famine is becoming a global threat. Meanwhile, Dr. Inglesby spoke against allowing the disease to spread relatively unencumbered until the population achieves “herd immunity,” an approach followed by Sweden. Inglesby testified: Epidemiological estimates are that it will require on the order of 70% of the population to be infected to achieve herd immunity. 70% of the US population is about people 233 million people. … It is likely that the infected mortality rate would go up substantially under conditions where the virus were allowed to spread rapidly in the US with no social distancing. Inglesby’s colleague, Johns Hopkins University epidemiologist Caitlin Rivers told a Democrat-led House Appropriations Subcommittee on Wednesday that not one U.S. state should be reopening at this time. Follow Edwin Mora on Twitter and Facebook.
Jem is such an unbelievable asshole.. It's Chewbacca defence from him everyday. Republican let committee find doctors who say what they want to hear for political cover. Tell the massive excess deaths where little to no precaution to protect the high risk about how its just like the fucking flu.
"In written testimony, Dr. Scott Atlas, a senior fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, said, seemingly referring to the infection death rate: By now, multiple studies from Europe, Japan, and the US all suggest that the overall fatality rate is far lower than early estimates, perhaps below 0.1 to 0.4%, i.e., ten to forty times lower than estimates that motivated extreme isolation." Once again we have idiots who don't know the difference between the Case Fatality Rate (CFR) and Infection Fatality Rate (IFR).
you keep making that dumb misleading argument. Your experts (fauci and the media and governors) have been using what you call the case rate. They confused the fuck out of you.. and your team and many americans The real experts have been saying the proper ratio to use is what you call the infection fatality rate. (However, many experts use the terminology crude rate and death or fatality rate.) No mater how you slice it your side touted the wrong ratio and you have been confusing the issue... not these experts.
Once again lets go through the difference between CASE FATALITY RATE and INFECTION FATALITY RATE. The CASE FATALITY RATE is expected to be 5.8%; this is the figure used to officially count mortality of a disease. The INFECTION FATALITY RATE is based on estimates of possible infections. This is expected to be at 0.5% to 0.8%. This is very different than the case mortality rate. No infectious disease expert would ever argue that "proper ratio to use is what you call the infection fatality rate" The INFECTION FATALITY RATE is based on mere estimates of infections, not on any type of proven numbers. You and others were attempting to claim that COVID-19 was no worse than the seasonal flu by comparing the INFECTION FATALITY RATE of COVID-19 which is actually 0.5% to 0.8% (but people were claiming was only 0.1% or 0.2% based on debunked statistics from clowns in California) to the CASE FATALITY RATE of the seasonal flu which is 0.1% in a bad flu season. Obviously comparing the INFECTION FATALITY RATE of COVID-19 to the CASE FATALITY RATE of the seasonal flu is totally inappropriate. Anyone doing this is merely a liar pushing fake nonsense. The Infection Fatality Rate for the season flu is a mere 0.025%. Here is a post that provides information in detail about the difference between CASE FATALITY RATE and INFECTION FATALITY RATE https://www.elitetrader.com/et/thre...more-lethal-than-the-flu.344034/#post-5085538 WHO estimated back in January based on Wuhan information that the Case Fatality Rate for COVID-19 was between 2% to 3%. They later revised this value to 3.4%. The most recent projection from WHO for Case Fatality Rate is 5.8% (which the U.S. is close to).
Wow was your claim off the charts uniformed.. no wonder you keep making the same damn wrong point. you don't understand how things work. Let me illustrate.... So you have an a virus with a case fatality rate of 90 percent ... And you have another with 20 percent case fatality rate... Which is more dangerous to the population? How do you know?
Actually the virus with the 20% case fatality rate is likely to be more dangerous to the population because the virus with the 90% case fatality rate is unlikely to spread because it kills off too many of the hosts. This, of course, is dependent on the characteristics of the virus for incubation period and other attributes. I have explained over and over again the official definitions of Case Fatality Rate and Infection Fatality Rate --- and their differences. However you seem to be so stuck on your political agenda that you keep pushing the same nonsense while ignoring the science. I am explaining the the correct scientific definitions used by informed, rational people.