It is more interesting to look at the many times these 30 scientists have appeared on right-wing media outlets and articles driving their no-lockdow political narrative. These characters are political advocates as a primary profession rather than scientists. Dr. Jay Bhattacharya is a fine example - " he co-authored a Wall Street Journal opinion column suggesting the new coronavirus may not be as deadly as many believe. The following month, he co-authored a Stanford study that indicated the virus was far more prevalent than presumed and as a result, the death rate far lower. That pre-peer-review study — which was later revised — drew withering criticism and even prompted Stanford to review the team’s work, which Bhattacharya said he was confident would be vindicated." Other medical facility members at Stanford are demanding he be removed from the staff.
Keep in mind that all the advocates for no lockdowns -- also oppose mask and any other mitigation measure to protect people from the virus. They only advocate that we should lock the old people up and let everyone else go about life as if COVID-19 does not exist.
you and you the end of the world crazies didn't like their numbers... at the time. Now... it looks like were far closer to reality than your nut case buddies. turns out their IFR of .33 in Santa Clara was likely spot on. You and your crazy nut bags like Fauci were pissed because you were telling us about 4 to 6 percent death rates.... And don't give us your bullshit about CFR vs IFR. you and Fauci were dead wrong which ever number you look at. Although there are articles showing that Fauci screwed up IFR and CFRs. https://www.sfgate.com/news/editors...ody-study-revised-Stanford-death-15263047.php After the first version of the study was published, a number of experts criticized the aggressive weighting system as well as its methodology. The adjustments still yield a near-doubling of the unweighted antibody prevalence, but are clearly on the low-end of the researchers' initial estimates. Santa Clara County had just 1,000 confirmed cases of the virus when the study was conducted, which leads researchers to believe there were actually 54,000 infections at this time. The researchers use a 19-day lag from infection to death, and when using the 94 deaths in the county reported on April 22, are able calculate a "true fatality rate" of .17 percent. This is on the higher end of their initial estimate of .1 to .2 percent. Immediately after the initial version of the study was released, Dr. George Rutherford, an epidemiologist at UCSF, highlighted the fact that the antibody test the researchers used was not FDA-approved, as very few antibody tests received approval in early April. Rutherford was skeptical of the study's weights, and believed onlookers should just look at the raw antibody prevalence percentage of 1.5 percent. "At end of day, the percent positive for antibodies was 1.5 percent," he said. "I don’t know what to make of the original sample, I don't know what to make of their adjustments for laboratory tests or the general population weight. I walk away thinking they found 1.5 percent of people have antibodies. They're smart as whips but felt crushed to get this out quickly, which is understandable." Rutherford added that a 1.5 percent antibody prevalence is in line with what he would have expected. "In the medical community, the thought is that one percent of people have been exposed in the Bay Area, and it's a little higher in Santa Clara County," he said. An unweighted antibody prevalence of 1.5 percent translates to a total of 28,920 residents in the county that have been infected. This high figure suggests infections are underreported by a factor of 30, and the true fatality rate in Santa Clara County is .33 percent — a figure almost identical to the "true" mortality rate calculated following antibody tests in a hard-hit German town. A .33 mortality rate is still nothing to sniff at, however, as it is three times deadlier than the seasonal flu (with a mortality rate of .1) and can be significantly higher for elderly residents and individuals with underlying conditions.
The seasonal flu has an IFR (Infection Fatality Rate) of 0.025% The seasonal flu has a CFR (Case Fatality Rate) of 0.1% The provided IFR of COVID at 0.33% is 13 times the IFR of the seasonal flu. Please stop comparing apples and oranges when making IFR and CFR comparisons with the seasonal flu and COVID.
I knew you would pull that bullshit. We are talking about Covid's IFR in Santa Clara vs your idea at the time that Covid had a 4 to 6 CFR.
The current global CFR (Case Fatality Rate) of COVID is 3%. CFR is a proven number an the number that is used for scientific research since the number of cases is known. IFR (Infection Fatality Rate) is nothing more than an estimate since the number of infections is merely an estimate and not known.
1. back on April 19th, you were touting "5.8 percent actual death rate. " based on WHO models. You apparently were confused by IFR and CFR... back then. 2. The Stanford guys showed you that the real number in Santa Clara was closer to an IFR of .33. Which of course morons like you and Fauci and and the lockdown losers could not accept.