Corona Virus Death Rate will be about .6% to .7%

This is another one of the professors of whom you know more than... without even reviewing the data or his study? What a garbage attack the messenger not the message... bullshit trick.

You are so full of shit.
Yes some people were critical because he did not dreate perfect Covid study, His subject were not perfectly random (nor did he claim them to be) and the critics were complaining the antibody tests were not perfect. But, none of them are and he used the best ones from what I read.

And so what. Of course they are critics. There is a whole doomer / media quote industry right now.

And its not his fault the antibody tests are not 100 percent.
Frankly the more I read... I am not so sure even the live virus tests are that good.

This is all bullshit models and bullshit data and questionable testing.
The lockdown was never based on science or data...
If the hospital beds are open the low risk and healthy should never have been lockdown.


gwb-trading said:
This is another "study" from John Ioannidis who has been pushing loads of fake nonsense regarding COVID-19. Let's see what the media and other medical specialists have to say about this latest bullshiat paper from May 13th. As noted by others -- John Ioannidis has become brazen in pushing his falsehoods.

For his Covid-19 work, the Stanford scientist John Ioannidis is being accused of the same bad science he has criticized.
https://undark.org/2020/04/24/john-ioannidis-covid-19-death-rate-critics/

Let's take a look at other right-wing anti-science propaganda pushed by John Ionnidas including his "reproducibility crisis" nonsense.

He continues to actively push fake statistics from other Stanford staff members that have been totally debunked. He refuses to testify for Democratic House but only for the Republican Senate.

Let's take a look at all of Professor John Ioannidis' support for the conservative National Association of Scholars NAS and a few of his positions in papers and media that liberals are ruining academia and science using a fake narrative of "reproducibility crisis".

As starting point review this paper by the National Association of Scholars NAS pushing the "reproducibility crisis" fallacy using many quotes and references from their star, Professor John Ioannidis.

Let's take a look at a Wired article showing that Professor John Ioannidis political clowns are pushing a false narrative....
Science's "Reproducibility Crisis" Is Being Used as Political Ammunition
A report from the National Association of Scholars takes on the reproducibility crisis in science. Not everyone views the group’s motives as pure.
https://www.wired.com/story/sciences-reproducibility-crisis-is-being-used-as-political-ammunition/

Let's take a look at Professor John Ioannidis starting and supporting the conservative war on science.
Donald Trump’s war on science and its long-lasting consequences
https://theconversation.com/debate-...ience-and-its-long-lasting-consequences-99534

----------- Extract ------
Since science’s crisis made it to the headlines thanks to a cover of The Economist in October 2013 and based on previous works John P.A. Ioannidis, it was only a matter of time before the crisis become enrolled in this long-standing fight between regulators and the regulated.

Thus, few were surprised when recently the EPA proposed new rules this April for transparency meant to fight “secret science” and simultaneously the NAS – not the National Academy of Science but the National Association of Scholars [sic] – published a report on science’s “irreproducibility”, urging remedial action including: Congress should pass an expanded Secret Science Reform Act to prevent government agencies from making regulations based on irreproducible research.
  • Congress should require government agencies to adopt strict reproducibility standards by measures that include strengthening the Information Quality Act.
The report blames the crisis on the “progressive left” and its attack on higher education with “neo-Marxism, radical feminism, historicism, post-colonialism, deconstructionism, post-modernism, liberation theology, and a host of other ideologies”.
---------------------------

And of course there is the JetBlue funding of his work to state that COVID-19 is harmless...
https://www.elitetrader.com/et/thre...avirus-wasnt-that-deadly.344869/#post-5101816
More...
 
That is interesting...thanks for pointing it out.

people organized on their own...
wore masks
protected the elderly
went on strike to force the govt to close the border
and refused to listen to the govt in other ways

nicely done

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2020/05/how-hong-kong-beating-coronavirus/611524/


vanzandt said:
In mid-Feb. I made this observation about a picture someone posted of Hong Kong.



https://elitetrader.com/et/threads/...use-of-coronavirus.339755/page-6#post-5014615

To date Hong Kong, one of the worlds most densely populated cities by any metric, has a grand total of four Covid deaths. Four.
More...
 
jem said:
This is another one of the professors of whom you know more than... without even reviewing the data or his study? What a garbage attack the messenger not the message... bullshit trick.

You are so full of shit.
Yes some people were critical because he did not dreate perfect Covid study, His subject were not perfectly random (nor did he claim them to be) and the critics were complaining the antibody tests were not perfect. But, none of them are and he used the best ones from what I read.

And so what. Of course they are critics. There is a whole doomer / media quote industry right now.

And its not his fault the antibody tests are not 100 percent.
Frankly the more I read... I am not so sure even the live virus tests are that good.

This is all bullshit models and bullshit data and questionable testing.
The lockdown was never based on science or data...
If the hospital beds are open the low risk and healthy should never have been lockdown.
More...

You can continue supporting a clown who is funded by the CEO of JetBlue to produce material that COVID-19 is harmless.... or actually look at reality.
https://www.elitetrader.com/et/thre...avirus-wasnt-that-deadly.344869/#post-5101816
 
gwb-trading said:
You can continue supporting a clown who is funded by the CEO of JetBlue to produce material that COVID-19 is harmless.... or actually look at reality.
https://www.elitetrader.com/et/thre...avirus-wasnt-that-deadly.344869/#post-5101816
More...

All these so called academics are funded by someone. They do not work for free. Of course, whoever, funded the study will get their views supported by academia. It is called conflict of interest. No different when they said coffee is bad for you and there was a study for it. Then, the coffee group launched their own study and they now said coffee has health benefits. So, who do you believe? It does not end there. You have those against avocados, remember that? Avocados are bad for you then, another study avocados are actually, good and healthy for you. And extreme liberal media? They are the biggest liars pulling their bogus studies out of their asses. It does not take much to pay an extreme liberal academic hack to tell you the world is ending tomorrow. Panic and hysteria being promoted by extreme liberal media and even Dr. Fauci walking back his statements on a 2nd wave? No hospitals are not being overwhelmed and actually, doctors and nurses have been laid off. Not enough work left for them to do when everything is focused on Corona Virus. Everything else does not matter?
 
Last edited:
wildchild said:
Well I nailed that one.
More...
tenor.gif
upload_2020-9-12_17-56-28.png
 
gwb-trading said:
Yes, the CFR (Case Fatality Rate) appears to be around 3 or 4%.
The IFR (Infection Fatality Rate) which is only a estimate (relative to unreported cases) is most likely between 0.3 and 0.8 percent.

The CFR is used when properly discussing the fatality rate of a disease since it is known & proven.
More...
Maybe read the OP's thread title and quote him?
 
gwb-trading said:
Yes, the CFR (Case Fatality Rate) appears to be around 3 or 4%.
The IFR (Infection Fatality Rate) which is only a estimate (relative to unreported cases) is most likely between 0.3 and 0.8 percent.

The CFR is used when properly discussing the fatality rate of a disease since it is known & proven.
More...

GWB, you were asked to provide your military records, since you seem to be living off the achievements of others.

When are you going to tell the world what you did?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top