People realize that former NYT reporter simply cherry picks data that is helpful to his conspiratorial narrative and ignores everything else, right?
I’m sure he got practice doing that at the NYT, but people really need to stop promoting him just bc they like his conclusions.
I’m sure he got practice doing that at the NYT, but people really need to stop promoting him just bc they like his conclusions.
Let’s make this simple:
We now have a pretty good idea that the mortality rate of COVID-19 is ~ 1%. Mortality rate of the flu is around .1%. Assume they are equally infectious.
If 30M Americans get the flu = 30,000 deaths.
If 30M Americans get COVID-19= 300,000 deaths.
We now have a pretty good idea that the mortality rate of COVID-19 is ~ 1%. Mortality rate of the flu is around .1%. Assume they are equally infectious.
If 30M Americans get the flu = 30,000 deaths.
If 30M Americans get COVID-19= 300,000 deaths.
That’s why you need to lower the denominator. That’s why we had to take urgent action to stop spread. He’s now using data showing that action worked to argue it wasn’t necessary, which is clearly dishonest.
Now you might think that action went too far some places or that what we’ve done to avoid over-extending resources is now sufficient or that there are alternatives, but someone selling that it didn’t make a huge difference is just being dishonest.
