you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]danuker 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

In Italy, the typical death rate is about 622 thousand people per year. This translates to about 1700 per day.

But Coronavirus killed 919 people in a 24-hour period ending on 2020-03-27.

Assuming it added deaths to the regular rate, you were only 1.84 times more likely to die of other causes, not 218x.

[–]Jesus[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

Unfortunately, those stats we can not say for sure. They have been claiming people have died with COVID-19. Not because of, and again, the mortality rate based on infection rate in endemic areas means you are 218x more likely to die of lofe than the virus. Search UK column's youtube video from 3 days ago and watch the doctor/acientist explain it. You're cherry picking data.

[–]danuker 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

  1. Choose any country you want, so I don't cherry pick. Hell, even give me your data - typical deaths per day in that country, and deaths due to COVID-19.
  2. I'm not gonna watch an hour-long video just for you. Give me the data now and simply, as I gave it to you.

[–]AyeCorona 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

The deaths are not due to covid 19 though. These are reported as deaths with the virus not because of the virus. There is no distinction between the 2 and the fact that over 90% of people that die with the virus have serious health problems already means that we can assume most of these deaths are not in fact because of the virus at all. Take into account in the uk they no longer allow medical examinations of the dead and a doctor that hasn't ever met the patient can sign the death certificate without a 2nd doctor in agreement its clear that the numbers we are being told are false at least and outright fabrications at worst

[–]danuker 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

reported as deaths with the virus not because of the virus

Oh. So the virus knocking out your immune system, and then getting you killed by your usually-manageable opportunistic infections shouldn't count? Or that it kills you 10 years early, with your diabetes that would be survivable otherwise?

in the uk they no longer allow medical examinations of the dead

Where did you find that out? the UK gov has guidelines of what PPE to wear during autopsy.

[–]Jesus[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

2: watch the video. It's 46 mins. You can get the the figures from there.

[–]Jesus[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Its all from the WHO's website and then take into account the infection rate. Just watch the video. The doctor is featured around halfway. He also me tions a few other tidbits about WMD's and the 9/11 lie, which UK column interestingly tried to hush down.

[–]danuker 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

around halfway

You are being lazy. As I said before, I will not watch an hour long video to debunk what I already debunked.

[–]danuker 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

Here I just looked at world data.

Edit: With world data, you get a 133863/4737 ~= 28 times more likely to die of "regular" death than COVID, instead of the 218x your post claims.

[–]Jesus[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Yes now add in endemic areas and infection rate which is .11% as per the new studies.

[–]Jesus[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Then search UK Column's video from 3 days ago whoch has the numbers of deaths teported on the tumbnail and watch the video. There will be a doctor who is interviewed their and he has his own channel, search him and he will give you all the data you need.

[–]danuker 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Infection rate is difficult to estimate. I do not trust the studies. I use death rate because deaths are comparable between countries.

[–]Jesus[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

All the pubmed atufies I've tead have averaged out to around .11% in endemic areas. So, if you take into account this infection rate with the death risk, which is less than 1% for 18 year olds, and less than 1% for 45 year olds but close to 8% for 75+ year olds, that will give you the mortality rate which is 0.002%.

I'm writing a piece about all of this so I'll have the relevant studies then.

[–]danuker 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Oh, I just realized. Also, I did not cherrypick, because you mentioned "endemic area". Is Italy not an endemic area?

[–]Jesus[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

No, not all of Italy. If you take the provinces of say China, most provinces had 2-3 deaths or none at all. And most of the statistics are manipulated and over-exaggerated.

[–]danuker 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

not all of Italy

So, my estimate for dying of other causes would be higher (closer to yours). Yet it's still 100 times smaller.


China has had about 3300 deaths. That may be because they acted quickly and implemented strict quarantine, or may be because they're lying. But going against a government implies a serious burden of proof, which you do not offer.