Comments by "N Marbletoe" (@nmarbletoe8210) on "COVID, Infection Fatality Rates" video.

  1. we will want to do three things we didn't do this time: prevent, monitor, and plan.
    7
  2. more likely new and less deadly strains
    4
  3. 1. Because 0.2% of a lot is a lot. 2 Because if we did nothing it would be much higher than 0.2%. 3. Because... yes well we should figure out how to protect without destroying, yes indeed. So good point.
    3
  4. interesting!
    3
  5.  @robertlivingston360  that's kinda meh. there were two cases where a dengue serology test had a false positive. . two cases, and not PCR.
    3
  6. about double
    2
  7. that seems logical
    2
  8. media is dumb. . is the paper any good?
    2
  9. Case numbers are fundamentally inappropriate for estimating population prevalence. They are not randomly selected.
    2
  10. The "cases" number is not appropriate to use in that calculation. You need to use an estimate of the true infection rate from a random sample survey.
    1
  11. ​ @richardwilliams3308  By isolating bad cases humanity has created selection pressure for a less deadly virus. . We don't know if the virus did evolve, but the death rate in the 2nd wave is much lower, sometimes 1/40th of what it was in the first wave. Part of this is due to better treatment. . Like you I don't like the shutdowns, but public health is good.
    1
  12.  @eileens4943  it's definitely zoonotic. even if it was modified in the lab and accidentally released, it still came from other animals.
    1
  13. citation?
    1
  14. CFR is not a reliable number, IFR is much harder to get but is a much more real thing.
    1
  15. both are good
    1
  16. Yes, we could see the "confirmed cases" is a soft number, to be kind, and that true infections were 10x from proper random surveys.
    1
  17. maybe but that is very hard to test!
    1
  18. 0.02 = 2%
    1
  19. Indiana got about the same figure. They got 0.28% with a proper random sample study, just recently. .
    1
  20. You did not watch this guy much.
    1
  21.  @Tibetan-  No what he said was that if I wear a mask it helps OTHERS more than it helps ME. He didn't say to not wear them or that they were useless. . That wasn't 100% true imho but that was his line. . Look ok, you have a point, he has made plenty of mistakes, but he also corrects many of them and learns.
    1
  22. people who survived it it will be immune and don't need the vaccine
    1
  23.  @jeannorris1510  in the second wave, Sweden has close to zero deaths. . Gotta look closer than summing up the entire pandemic.
    1
  24.  @jeannorris1510  Yes it is not over. But the second wave has gone on long enough in Sweden to see the mortality rate is far lower than the first wave. . This also seems true for most countries in Europe (and most states in the USA) with some exceptions like Czech.
    1
  25. Much more than 9% can get sick without producing antibodies. Also most will lose them after a few months. .
    1
  26.  @pawelnotts  yes I agree with that.
    1
  27. It looks to me like it is... in many countries, but that is very hard to prove.
    1
  28.  JohanMDK  What is the flu death rate in the US? About 0.1%?
    1
  29. not representative
    1
  30. Infection rate can be estimated from random sampling. That is the only proper way.
    1
  31. That seems reasonable actually.
    1
  32. lower than what, 5 x 0.4%?
    1
  33. In the store, everyone wears them in my town. The town has many Trump supporters and many Biden supporters.
    1