you are so full of shit.... what if the 90 percent rate had and R0 of 10 and the 20 percent had and R0 of .1 You know damn well you need to have an idea of how many people are going to be infected. You could have a 100 percent case fatality rate... but if only 100 people in the world will die, you should never shut down and economy based on the case fatality rate... you have to know how infectious it is too.
This guy is an expert... He is saying... that at the time the given was there were not aware of any asymptomatic infections. In other words... policy is not based on the "case fatality rate" unless that is also the infection mortality rate. you have been lying your ass off... from the link... "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." https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Testimony-Ioannidis-2020-05-06.pdf
Did you miss the part about "This, of course, is dependent on the characteristics of the virus for incubation period and other attributes". However generally diseases with a very high case fatality rate such as 90% tend to be less of a threat to the population since their characteristic of killing most of their hosts makes them less likely to spread through the population -- leaving them with an effective lower infection (R) rate.
This clown (plus the other clowns) from Stanford has already been called out as a political hack in his Senate testimony which is merely his opinion not supported by any facts. Using information from other debunked clowns at Stanford to support his claims is a clear demonstration of the absurdity of his testimony.
John P.A. Ioannidis, MD, DSc Professor of Medicine, of Epidemiology and Population Health, and (by courtesy) of Biomedical Data Science, and of Statistics and Co-Director, Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS), Stanford University, Stanford, CA versus....GWB
you said or implied you could create policy based on only knowing the case fatality rate. yet that is illogical... because you have to know if the virus is going to infect significant portion of the population. you were wrong... very wrong... and now you are just introducing bullshit and red herrings.
Yet he actively pushes fake statistics from other Stanford staff members that have been totally debunked. He refuses to testify for Democratic House but only for the Republican Senate. Let's take a look at all of Professor John Ioannidis' support for the conservative National Association of Scholars NAS and a few of his positions in papers and media that liberals are ruining academia and science using a fake narrative of "reproducibility crisis". Let's start with a paper by the National Association of Scholars NAS pushing the "reproducibility crisis" fallacy using many quotes and references from their star, Professor John Ioannidis. Let's take a look at a Wired article showing that Professor John Ioannidis political clowns are pushing a false narrative.... Science's "Reproducibility Crisis" Is Being Used as Political Ammunition A report from the National Association of Scholars takes on the reproducibility crisis in science. Not everyone views the group’s motives as pure. https://www.wired.com/story/sciences-reproducibility-crisis-is-being-used-as-political-ammunition/ Let's take a look at Professor John Ioannidis starting and supporting the conservative war on science. Donald Trump’s war on science and its long-lasting consequences https://theconversation.com/debate-...ience-and-its-long-lasting-consequences-99534 ----------- Extract ------ Since science’s crisis made it to the headlines thanks to a cover of The Economist in October 2013 and based on previous works John P.A. Ioannidis, it was only a matter of time before the crisis become enrolled in this long-standing fight between regulators and the regulated. Thus, few were surprised when recently the EPA proposed new rules this April for transparency meant to fight “secret science” and simultaneously the NAS – not the National Academy of Science but the National Association of Scholars [sic] – published a report on science’s “irreproducibility”, urging remedial action including: Congress should pass an expanded Secret Science Reform Act to prevent government agencies from making regulations based on irreproducible research. Congress should require government agencies to adopt strict reproducibility standards by measures that include strengthening the Information Quality Act. The report blames the crisis on the “progressive left” and its attack on higher education with “neo-Marxism, radical feminism, historicism, post-colonialism, deconstructionism, post-modernism, liberation theology, and a host of other ideologies”.
you have a problem with requiring that science policy be predicated on reproducible results? The other side of that debate is this woman Global Warming liar... I remind you that there is no peer reviewed papers showing that man made CO2 causes global warming as of the last time I searched... Its no wonder Global Warming liars... desire that policy be made without good science. here is a clown in the last link.... She is the queen of global warming bullshit.... :For Naomi Oreskes writing on Nature the true science’s crisis is its instrumental use by corporate interests, not reproducibility. For Kathleen Hall Jamieson, writing on the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science in March this year, the “science is broken” narrative is a histrionic, unwarranted generalisations. She warns “partisans” against fuelling dangerous narratives, lest these undermine science, and censors the media for their style of reporting of the crisis."
Do You still say that policy should be based on the Case Infection rate alone? Or do you need to know something else?
So you provide the founder and leader of the conservative war on science with the fake "reproducibility crisis" narrative as your source of information. Still sticking with this? It's laughable.