Actually I am glad that it is all posted for prosperity. Any reasonable individual will be able to read everything I posted and see that I am entirely factual & correct. While people like you simply provide fact-free content attacking people when you are not peddling conspiracy nonsense.
You still don't know the difference between CASE FATALITY RATE and INFECTION FATALITY RATE. SAD The conspiracy nonsense you and others pushed comparing the Infection Fatality Rate of COVID-19 to the Case Fatality Rate of season flu trying to claim that COVID-19 was no more deadly than the seasonal flu was even SADDER.
If a tree falls in the woods and no one is around, does it make a sound? So you never test positive, but you are still listed as a death. You are a dunce.
They were reporting what the Chinese told them. They are not a spy agency. Its the same as if Trump's regime said similar, he is lying but what he says has to be reported. You complete lightweight
I don't know what is more incredulous - you claiming a statistics website is a "left wing site", or your absurd debunked claims that somehow society can shelter high-risk people from the disease while letting the "low--risk" freely wander around. Sweden showed conclusively how incorrect this is.
1. the left wing site... was a crack on you calling foreignaffairs.com and other sites I have site as right wing. I never believe in critique the messenger if the message is backed by facts and stats. Whether you like it or not... we are already following the Swedish model in many stats. 2/I am not claiming society can shelter high risk people from some deaths. I am claiming per de Prado's models and common sense... we will save overall harm including deaths and medical issues by letting out the low risk group. I am also saying the high risk groups should isolate themselves and for those who can't do it themselves (like my mother) we have to follow the best practices for old folks homes. You argue against strawman bullshit... instead of talking about our arguments. I am balancing the risks of harm... you are arguing about one factor... deaths caused by Covid. You have to balance all the harm. Letting out the low risk group.. .is likely to result in less deaths and less complications. .
You are under 50 right? How did your brain get so old and crusty? There is a database extract of everyone who signed up for this site up until 2012 out here on the dark Web in told. If I was Chinese I'd be using that to mess with you, not idly replying to your keyboard drool. Now are the WHO a spy agency or just a body that does its thing so can't do much to enforce accurate reporting? IT MUST take a countries word for reported data and that must be taken into account by other nations when considering reliability. Trump removed the US staff member embedded in the Chinese CDC. That was the failure.
As I stated multiple time.... and aligned with the best guidance from public health experts the best policy for addressing a novel pandemic with no vaccine or treatment is as follows: Shelter in place for 60 days. Re-open in stages with clear entry/exit criteria once adequate testing and contact tracing is available. This is the best policy for balancing public health, mental health and the economy. It is the plan that most of the U.S. and world is following. It reduces the deaths as much as possible while allowing the economy to re-open as quickly as possible. The worst alternative is Sweden's or Brazil's -- which allows the disease to spread widely and ensures the economy will go downhill for months or years as the disease is not contained. Sweden demonstrated conclusively that there is no way to isolate high-risk groups. Claiming that you can isolate high-risk groups is absurd in a community is absurd. Is Prado suddenly a public health expert? If you read his assertions -- he pushed a policy of staying at home for a period and then re-opening. Somehow you continue to ignore that.
Absent proof to the contrary Sweden shows that if the virus got into old folks homes before they were shutdown... lots of old folks die. Like what happened in the US. Sweden has shutdown old folks homes... So you are arguing nonsense once again. Your opinion of best policy is shaped by fear and a few experts touted by the fear driving media. Its not based on real data or useful shutdown of low risk group models. I find it telling that your side constantly balances nothing and only appeals to deaths from Covid instead of overall harm and overall deaths. if I recall... and I may not recall every detail, de Prado... said a short period to get your data and then open up to low risk groups. you were the one who kept misrepresenting what he actually wrote... I remember having to tell you your conclusions were contradicted by his conclusion and the abstract.