I hope so, but that would be still many times higher and more virulent than the flu.
The CDC's New 'Best Estimate' Implies a COVID-19 Infection Fatality Rate Below 0.3%
https://reason.com/2020/05/24/the-cd...ate-below-0-3/
Biggest hoax ever.
0.3%...and 90% of them were either over 80 or were residents of a long term care home. And looking at all those elderly people who died, half of them died because Cuomo and a handful of northeastern blue state governors and their health officials effectively killed them.
I hope so, but that would be still many times higher and more virulent than the flu.
Russian trolls and their supporters go on Ignore, automatically: no second chance.
cancel2 2022 (05-25-2020)
cancel2 2022 (05-25-2020), PostmodernProphet (05-26-2020)
Charoite (05-25-2020)
Read the REAL numbers and weep, limey cunt.
99,805 deaths
1,706,226 cases
5.8% death rate. Same as CDC
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/
cancel2 2022 (05-25-2020)
Charoite (05-25-2020)
Don't you love when they put up some biased source that claims this and that is what so and so says when horse's mouth info is readily available? Do they even read their own links that mention in places more heavily infected the numbers essentially don't fit these models? You people are too desperate and not grown up enough to chime in on handling this. Your call of a hoax is adolescent whimpers that put you at the kid's table of discussion. Get a Capri-Sun and piss off, JR.
cancel2 2022 (05-25-2020)
cancel2 2022 (05-25-2020)
domer76 (05-25-2020)
cancel2 2022 (05-25-2020)
Ignorant fucking Septic, always full of shit! Nobody knows the fucking denominator with any certainty.
https://ourworldindata.org/covid-mor...ality-rate-cfrThe case fatality rate (CFR)
In the media, it is often the “case fatality rate” that is talked about when the risk of death from COVID-19 is discussed. This measure is sometimes called case fatality risk or case fatality ratio, or CFR. But this is not the same as the risk of death for an infected person – even though, unfortunately, journalists often suggest that it is. It is relevant and important, but far from the whole story.
The CFR is very easy to calculate. You take the number of people who have died, and you divide it by the total number of people diagnosed with the disease. So if 10 people have died, and 100 people have been diagnosed with the disease, the CFR is [10/100], or 10%.
But it’s important to note that it is the ratio between the number of confirmed deaths from the disease and the number of confirmed cases, not total cases. That means that it is not the same as – and, in fast-moving situations like COVID-19, probably not even very close to – the true risk for an infected person.
Another important metric, which should not be confused with the CFR, is the crude mortality rate.
Last edited by cancel2 2022; 05-25-2020 at 09:10 PM.
cancel2 2022 (05-25-2020)
Charoite (05-26-2020)
It's better than you'd think as CNN is being referenced as an original story. Any time you get a story styled like this it is questionable though. Let's call this type of story as fools news. Kind of like fools gold it's difficult to tell the difference unless you base it off the original. Just go to the CDC basically. They did throw down a link to CDC but only to a bit cherry-picked for this. The sad part is when they don't even get the gist of their own link. The whole tidbit about these numbers not standing up in places heavily affected.
Bullshit, stick this up your cavernous arse fatso!!
https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-dr...e-0-5-or-less/
Bookmarks