A Virus so Deadly... you need to get tested to find out you're sick. Hundreds of Thousands of 'new cases', yet the hospitals are empty and nobody is dying. Nothing but data ****ery and corrupt bureaucrats driving the Covid PSYOP
CDC admits death toll is inflated! Of 161,392 deaths ONLY 6% / 9,683 ARE DIRECTLY CAUSED BY COVID.
- Thread starter _CY_
- Start Date
The 1% blunder: How a simple but fatal math mistake by US Covid-19 experts caused the world to panic and order lockdowns | September 6, 2020 | RT (www.rt.com)
They got their IFR and CFR mixed up and multiplied the likely impact of Covid by a factor of ten.
Here’s what the paper, “Public health lessons learned from biases in coronavirus mortality overestimation”,says: “On March 11, 2020,... based on the data available at the time, Congress was informed that the estimated mortality rate for the coronavirus was ten-times higher than for seasonal influenza, which helped launch a campaign of social distancing, organizational and business lockdowns, and shelter-in-place orders.”
======
Accepted manuscript August 2020 , pp. 1-24
- Ronald B. Brown (a1) https://doi.org/10.1017/dmp.2020.298
- Published online by Cambridge University Press: 12 August 2020
Abstract
In testimony before U.S. Congress on March 11, 2020, members of the House Oversight and Reform Committee were informed that estimated mortality for the novel coronavirus was ten-times higher than for seasonal influenza. Additional evidence, however, suggests the validity of this estimation could benefit from vetting for biases and miscalculations. The main objective of this article is to critically appraise the coronavirus mortality estimation presented to Congress. Informational texts from the World Health Organization and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are compared with coronavirus mortality calculations in Congressional testimony. Results of this critical appraisal reveal information bias and selection bias in coronavirus mortality overestimation, most likely caused by misclassifying an influenza infection fatality rate as a case fatality rate. Public health lessons learned for future infectious disease pandemics include: safeguarding against research biases that may underestimate or overestimate an associated risk of disease and mortality; reassessing the ethics of fear-based public health campaigns; and providing full public disclosure of adverse effects from severe mitigation measures to contain viral transmission.
When the most densely populated city in the US has single digit deaths, you know it's a crisis
https://www.google.com/search?sourc...hUKEwjazPCAmdfrAhVJqxoKHQtRC6EQ4dUDCAc&uact=5
https://www.google.com/search?sourc...hUKEwjazPCAmdfrAhVJqxoKHQtRC6EQ4dUDCAc&uact=5
NOBODY TALKS ABOUT THIS: on Jan. 23 the Chinese cut off Hubei province from the rest of China -- but they let flights from Hubei to rest of world continue ! (twitter.com)
Fiery but peaceful Mike
@Doranimated
Niall Ferguson's latest column (paywall) notes that on Jan. 23 the Chinese cut off Hubei province from the rest of China -- but they didn't cut it off from the rest of the world. Direct flights out continued. Trump's travel restrictions kicked in only a week later.
Get that Vitamin D, friends
Vitamin D supplementation to prevent acute respiratory tract infections: systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data
BMJ 2017; 356 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i6583 (Published 15 February 2017)Cite this as: BMJ 2017;356:i6583
https://www.bmj.com/content/356/bmj.i6583
https://www.bmj.com/content/356/bmj.i6583.full.pdf
Abstract
Objectives To assess the overall effect of vitamin D supplementation on risk of acute respiratory tract infection, and to identify factors modifying this effect.
Design Systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data (IPD) from randomised controlled trials.
Data sources Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Number registry from inception to December 2015.
Eligibility criteria for study selection Randomised, double blind, placebo controlled trials of supplementation with vitamin D3 or vitamin D2 of any duration were eligible for inclusion if they had been approved by a research ethics committee and if data on incidence of acute respiratory tract infection were collected prospectively and prespecified as an efficacy outcome.
Results 25 eligible randomised controlled trials (total 11 321 participants, aged 0 to 95 years) were identified. IPD were obtained for 10 933 (96.6%) participants. Vitamin D supplementation reduced the risk of acute respiratory tract infection among all participants (adjusted odds ratio 0.88, 95% confidence interval 0.81 to 0.96; P for heterogeneity <0.001). In subgroup analysis, protective effects were seen in those receiving daily or weekly vitamin D without additional bolus doses (adjusted odds ratio 0.81, 0.72 to 0.91) but not in those receiving one or more bolus doses (adjusted odds ratio 0.97, 0.86 to 1.10; P for interaction=0.05). Among those receiving daily or weekly vitamin D, protective effects were stronger in those with baseline 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels <25 nmol/L (adjusted odds ratio 0.30, 0.17 to 0.53) than in those with baseline 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels ≥25 nmol/L (adjusted odds ratio 0.75, 0.60 to 0.95; P for interaction=0.006). Vitamin D did not influence the proportion of participants experiencing at least one serious adverse event (adjusted odds ratio 0.98, 0.80 to 1.20, P=0.83). The body of evidence contributing to these analyses was assessed as being of high quality.
Conclusions Vitamin D supplementation was safe and it protected against acute respiratory tract infection overall. Patients who were very vitamin D deficient and those not receiving bolus doses experienced the most benefit.
Last edited:
Similar threads
