See hidden discussions | Win great prizes | Get free support
It kind of underplays and skews the numbers everywhere here.
There are better ways to make the case against the reaction to Covid19.
I'm curious, how does it underplay or skew the numbers? Seems like a very straightforward, uncomplicated measure of deaths per population size.
Ok. Would you care to list any? And say why you think it's better.
Also, what all these comparisons fail to illustrate is how many people would have died had it not been for the extreme measures taken. It may well have had no effect, it may have saved hundreds of thousands of lives. Truth is we will never know.
Well, your AIDs number is over 40 odd years. How you can compare that to covid over 12 months or so.
The global population sizes of anything before like 1000s is best guess I'd say.
Throw in the 2014 ebola outbreak into those numbers, it will be a tiny % but I sure as hell wouldn't want ebola anywhere near me.
You stated it yourself, the survival rate is a much better measurement to use than "deaths per total global population at the time"
You're doing it again.
By no stretch of the data or imagination is this claim true. It has never been true. Why are you claiming this? Based on what?
I'm saying you're either misrepresenting the data or deliberately making false claims.You're saying my number differs from that published by the CDC
I agree. Clearly, as in the case of Covid-19, the cure i.e. LD, can be far, far worse than the disease.