Good article full of actual data:
COVID-19 - Evidence Over Hysteria
COVID-19 - Evidence Over Hysteria
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Click Here if you want to upgrade your account
If you were able to post but cannot do so now, send an email to admin at raypeatforum dot com and include your username and we will fix that right up for you.
Good article full of actual data:
COVID-19 - Evidence Over Hysteria
No one has made a personal attack. The article was called drivel, because it is.The response to this article has arguably been more telling than even the material itself.
If you lead with a personal attack/insult on someone, it instantly outs you as being driven by emotion instead of facts/evidence, and you've now contaminated your argument.
After reading through the critiques of the article, nearly every one included some disparaging remarks about the author.
With a questionable conclusion you can dig into the data for clarification or better understanding, but with a person attack/insult, there's no alternative way to view it than being simply disrespectful.
No onehas made a personal attack, you are hallucinating one. The article was called drivel, because it is.
I posted that originally, but then I started reading the comments, and so many people said the data sucked & should be taken down that I crawled back into my state of Covid confusion. I have no idea what to believe at this point.....except I'm still pretty sure this is the greatest over-reaction the world has ever seen.For anyone interested, the article has now been posted on Zerohedge:
COVID-19 - Evidence Over Hysteria
I posted that originally, but then I started reading the comments, and so many people said the data sucked & should be taken down that I crawled back into my state of Covid confusion. I have no idea what to believe at this point.....except I'm still pretty sure this is the greatest over-reaction the world has ever seen.
Appears to me that many of the disparagers say little to nothing about the bad science of the article.
Having said that, you've just made my point. Instead of critiquing the article in a constructive way by refuting the data/conclusions, you've chosen to disparage it with an insult.
Sometimes some ideas that go viral are so bad that they deserve to be criticised bluntly. (Ideas that is, not people)
Criticism and insults are distinctly different.
One is constructive and the other is disrespectful (by design).
People are free to use whichever they like, but they will also be judged for their decision.
Well sure, people are free to judge whatever they want. But that’s missing the point imo. Why not judge the science and the article itself, instead? Did you read the twitter response to it, where they debunk it in detail?
We can’t find the truth based off looking at who is (apparently) insulting who.
Imagine someone watching a court case, and trying to decide who is guilty based off facial expressions and politeness, whilst ignoring the actual evidence that was presented.
1.3% of these people will suffer a mild case of death.And that screenshot I posted, would have been obvious I thought. Any article quoting “1% of cases will be severe” right next to “2.3% will die” shouldn’t need much debunking.
This is how I read the graph:I'm pretty sure that article is complete drivel, which was only up briefly before actual epidemiologists pointed out it's glaring flaws:
Carl T. Bergstrom on Twitter
Aaron Ginn said:93% of people who think they are positive aren’t
Looking at the success in S. Korea and Singapore, the important tool in our war chest is measurement. If we are concerned about the general non-infected population, what is the probability those who show symptoms actually test positive? What is the chance that the cough from your neighbor is COVID-19?
This “conversion rate” will show whether or not you have a cold (another coronavirus) or are heading into isolation for two weeks. Global data shows that ~95% of people who are tested aren’t positive. The positivity rate varies by country.
- UK: 7,132 concluded tests, of which 13 positive (0.2% positivity rate).
- UK: 48,492 tests, of which 1,950 (4.0% positivity rate)
- Italy: 9,462 tests, of which 470 positive (at least 5.0% positivity rate).
- Italy: 3,300 tests, of which 99 positive (3.0% positivity rate)
- Iceland: 3,787 tests, of which 218 positive (5.7% positive rate)
- France: 762 tests, of which 17 positive, 179 awaiting results (at least 2.2% positivity rate).
- Austria: 321 tests, of which 2 positive, awaiting results: unknown (at least 0.6% positivity rate).
- South Korea: 66,652 tests with 1766 positives 25,568 awaiting results (4.3% positivity rate).
- United States: 445 concluded tests, of which 14 positive (3.1% positivity rate)