Reply With Quote
I answered both.
"Australia"
Bwahjaahahhaha masks dont work.
You didn't answer the vax.
Bwwhahhaahha
5pm
I answered both.
Sanofi halts trials of failed COVID-19 drug
Pharmaceutical company ceases testing of possible coronavirus treatment
after adverse results including pneumonia, death
https://www.aa.com.tr/en/latest-on-coronavirus-outbreak/sanofi-halts-trials-of-failed-covid-19-drug/1959972
Remdesivir Fails to Prevent Covid-19 Deaths in Huge Trial
Critics said the study, sponsored by the W.H.O., was too poorly conducted to be definitive.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/15/h...sivir-who.html
Ministry of Truthiness
? You didn't. You do your scared to decide thing. You mad that I left Australia?I answered both.
Death threshold has been under pandemic levels for weeks. But continue
Ultrasounds show impact of COVID-19 on the heart
International study may guide therapeutic strategies in patients with and without underlying heart conditions
identifies different types of cardiac structural damage experienced by COVID-19 patients after cardiac injury that
can be associated with deadly conditions including heart attack, pulmonary embolism, heart failure, and myocarditis.
These abnormalities are associated with higher risk of death among hospitalized patients.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...1026144522.htm
Lololooolo
What is that level?
Approximately 5.7989%
Why lie?
Is telling the truth hard for you?
What was the lie?
Can you furnish support for your figure?
He cannot.
He is not smart in ten threads.
Yes. Its the cdc definition of percentage of death. You dumb?
Lol ChumpDumper fail
f
I see this caveat on the CDC page. Looks like CFR isn't the sole determinant of a pandemic, nor is it necessarily a good one. The picture seems a bit more nuanced than you're giving out here, perhaps your familiarity with the source material has gotten a little rusty.
Novel Framework for Assessing Epidemiologic Effects of Influenza Epidemics and Pandemics
Historically, assessment of influenza pandemic effects has been characterized by using an estimate of the overall CFR (4). Although this approach provided guidance for planning and projections of the expected number of deaths from pandemic influenza in the population, using that ratio alone presents several challenges. First, deaths from influenza may occur weeks after illness begins and can also be subject to reporting bias, delaying the ability of public health and government leaders to quickly issue recommendations for evidence-based public health interventions if they lack an accurate estimate of CFR. Second, a single overall CFR does not fully account for the varying effects a seasonal epidemic or pandemic could have on vulnerable population subgroups, which could include children or the elderly, those with chronic conditions, or certain racial and ethnic minorities. Finally, CFR does not address other societal effects, such as absenteeism or the demand on health care services from excess outpatient visits and hospitalizations, that could result from increased transmission. Because of these limitations, relying on CFR as a single measure of the effects on a population may make an assessment difficult if such data are not yet available early in a pandemic or misleading if the available data are not well characterized and the biases are not well understood.https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-res...framework.htmlRather than rely only on a single measure, such as the CFR, to assess the potential effects of a pandemic, which may be misleading if those data are unavailable or not representative early in the pandemic, we incorporated several epidemiologic measures into the framework, although the CFR remains a valuable measure of clinical severity. With the creation of a standard scale that includes multiple epidemiologic measures, a variety of data may be incorporated to help synthesize these different measures into an overall indicator of transmissibility and clinical severity.
file:///C:/Users/PF0F7MTF/Downloads/12-0124-TECHAPP1.pdf
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I couldn't find your cited figure (Approximately 5.7989%) , perhaps you can point it out for me. Going by CFR alone, as you've suggested is commonly done, suggests a clinical severity of 7 in the USA. Dunno if the other parameters line up, but declaring the pandemic over seems hasty.
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/19/1/12-0124-t2
https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality
Last edited by Winehole23; 10-28-2020 at 07:14 PM.
Cfr isn't the threshold, dunce, the threshold is the proportion of death from covid as compared to expected annual.
This is why you shouldn't post. This literally explains why ifr is better than cfr.
The percentage i gave you was an approx value of expected.
Them stats tho
I will also add i got ifr closer to accurate, than the cdc, 9 months ago and have been more correct even with their poisonings and lockdown deaths added into the "pandemic"
I won
^ gossip
That's sort of why I posted it. You didn't make clear you were talking about ifr. FWIW, I didn't latch onto cfr as a pandemic parameter all by myself, it's discussed as one by the CDC, with multiple caveats.
Expected ifr for a pandemic threshold?
Show your math or cite your source.
I'm not talking about ifr. I'm taking about what cons utes a pandemic. Which is death p.
Again, simple things like this, that you obviously have no clue about, are why people like you Elwrongwrong ChumpDumper WrongdomGuy shouldn't post. You dont know anything about the basis of the data being collected, nor do you understand statistics.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
