FitnessMike
Member
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2020
- Messages
- 1,676
.
-
By using this site you agree to the terms, rules, and privacy policy.
-
Charlie's Restoration Giveaway #2 (Entire Home EMF Mitigation & Protection Along With Personal Protection) - Click Here To Enter
-
Dear Carnivore Dieters, A Muscle Meat Only Diet is Extremely Healing Because it is a Low "vitamin A" Diet. This is Why it Works so Well...
Rest the rest of this post by clicking here
-
The Forum is transitioning to a subscription-based membership model - Click Here To Read
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.
Is there a legit data on whats the exact death rate for covid?
- Thread starter FitnessMike
- Start date
-
- Tags
- covid-19
P
Peatness
Guest
No
If you believe what the CDC says, you can check column 5 of the table for IFR (infection fatality rate) at this link: Healthcare Workers
The best current estimates put most people at a 99.8/99.9%+ chance of survival, even by their own data.
The best current estimates put most people at a 99.8/99.9%+ chance of survival, even by their own data.
Also be aware there are widespread reports of hospitals around the country misreporting COVID cases - if someone comes in with a gunshot wound and they die from it, but test positive for COVID, then they will lost COVID as the cause of death at that time. There is plenty of evidence of this as well as a financial incentive for healthcare facilities to exaggerate COVID mortality on site. It’s pretty crazy really.
Yes there is. Likely manipulated to inflate COVID-19 deaths, but still pretty revealing. The latest official (CDC) data shows unvaccinated death rate of 9 per 100K (and continues to drop as we speak). The death rate for flu (and keep in mind, mostly vaccinated people) is 15.2 per 100K. So, death rate is 0.009% for unvaccinated COVID-19 patients, which is almost 2 times lower than the death rate of 0.0152% for (mostly) vaccinated flu patients. To me, that puts an end to any discussion about a pandemic, at least in the US. And a vaccine mandate, in light of those numbers, is pure fascism and genocide, plain and simple.
@nejdev @Pina
COVID-19 Data:
New CDC data shows the risk of dying from Covid-19 is 11 times higher for unvaccinated adults than for fully vaccinated adults
"...By the last week of August, Covid-19 death rates among unvaccinated adults were about 30% lower than they were in the first week of the month, dropping from an incidence rate of 13 deaths per 100,000 people to about 9 deaths per 100,000 people. But since April, the risk for fully vaccinated adults has never been higher than 1.2 deaths per 100,000 people."
Flu Data:
FastStats
"...Deaths per 100,000 population: 15.2"
Last edited:
P
Peatness
Guest
Don’t forget that anyone who dies within 28 days of a pcr positive test is a covid death. I don’t think any of those numbers can be called reliable.
Right, but even with the unreliable numbers, we still have a disease less deadly than the flu, and the death rate for COVID-19 keeps dropping further in official CDC stats, as we speak. I have shown this data to some of my (former) friends, some of whom are doctors. Over the last year or so, they were clamoring for vaccine mandates due to COVID-19 being deadly, then because we need to take care of the vulnerable, then because we need to slow the spread to other countries, etc. All of those things have now shown to be false, and the masks (not the real ones they are still wearing) have finally fallen off. I was told in the face several times "you get vaccinated because WE say so!!". Does not portend well for the future of most "developed" societies on this planet...
Last edited:
P
Peatness
Guest
I agree with you entirely. I still insist that we may never know how many people really died because of a covid. Flu ‘disappeared’ in 2020 therefore normal flu deaths were counted as covid deaths. I do think that based on those numbers, real or false, there is no pandemic and never was. Vaccine mandates are nothing but tyranny, it is not based on science.
And with a new wave of people going in to get vaxd as employer mandate deadlines come up + the CDC’s own definition of “fully vaxxed” as 14 days after the last jab in your series, + changes to testing standards, then most of those “hospitalized unvaccinated” have to be including a significant number of people hospitalized very soon after vaccination.
The 9 deaths per 100k number is deaths per 100k population, NOT deaths per case. This is not the IFR/CFR number, so it's not less deadly than the flu, according to their official numbers (which are all a lie).
How do you calculate deaths per case then? We don't know what percentage of the population has had COVID-19, so we can't really calculate how many died and how many recovered as a fraction of total cases. There are arguably more untested/unconfirmed cases than "confirmed" ones (by the fake PCR test). As such, isn't this estimate per 100K the best we have so far? Besides, aren't the IFR/CFR proportional/correlated with the deaths per 100K?
CDC estimates IFR by age groups here:
If we look at deaths per 100k population for the flu on a weekly basis (which is the metric quoted by CNN), deaths would be around 1 per 100K population per week ... varying by season, of course.
"Besides, aren't the IFR/CFR proportional/correlated with the deaths per 100K?" - Not necessarily. That would depend on prevalence. Hypothetically, if covid only existed in one town in the USA, and killed half the town, the deaths per 100K of the entire US population would be well below 1. But the IFR would be 50%
"Besides, aren't the IFR/CFR proportional/correlated with the deaths per 100K?" - Not necessarily. That would depend on prevalence. Hypothetically, if covid only existed in one town in the USA, and killed half the town, the deaths per 100K of the entire US population would be well below 1. But the IFR would be 50%
CDC estimates IFR by age groups here:
If we look at deaths per 100k population for the flu on a weekly basis (which is the metric quoted by CNN), deaths would be around 1 per 100K population per week ... varying by season, of course.
"Besides, aren't the IFR/CFR proportional/correlated with the deaths per 100K?" - Not necessarily. That would depend on prevalence. Hypothetically, if covid only existed in one town in the USA, and killed half the town, the deaths per 100K of the entire US population would be well below 1. But the IFR would be 50%
Right, it would depend on prevalence, which nobody knows for sure, and not even as a good educated guess. In that case, the true IRF/CFR cannot really be known for any infectious disease, as the only way to calculate hard numbers is to have the status for every person in a given country across an entire year - i.e. uninfected, infected and survived, infected and died. Since those numbers cannot really be procured, IFR/CFR becomes yet another "numbers game" similar to the heavily manipulated "excess deaths" metric. The only thing we can do is look at total number of deaths from COVID-19 in a certain year, and (assuming those confirmed cases are legit) calculate what percentage of the total population that is. Since viral diseases have a well-documented peak-and-plateau curve (as herd immunity is reached within 12-18 months for highly infectious strains like SARS-CoV-2), the total number of deaths for COVID-19 as a ratio of the total population would be a good estimate of its IFR, after herd immunity has been reached, right?
In one of the German ‘Corona-Ausschuss’ sessions, they talked about an investigation at a clinic in Hamburg, I believe, where from 100 ‘Covid deaths’, 99 died of other causes.
Dr. Vladimir Zelenko had treated 3,000 patients with his Ivermectin protocol and only 3 died, that gives a 99.9% survival rate.
The older the patient, the higher the risk, especially with co-morbidities. For healthy, young patients, the risk of death must be extremely small.
Dr. Vladimir Zelenko had treated 3,000 patients with his Ivermectin protocol and only 3 died, that gives a 99.9% survival rate.
The older the patient, the higher the risk, especially with co-morbidities. For healthy, young patients, the risk of death must be extremely small.
We get the impression that counting cases & death rates should be straightforward. And it should have some connection with reality. But the distinctions you are both trying to draw may be moot b/c the methodology of reporting cases (CDC for ex) are ridiculously abstracted. They are statistical estimations aggregated with more statistical averages. I don’t have an answer. It would sound weird to suggest an abacus.
Here’s a problem (from the CDC’s influenza reporting methodology page):
“Prior to the 2020-2021 influenza season, the NCHS surveillance data were used to calculate the percent of all deaths occurring each week that had pneumonia and/or influenza (P&I) listed as a cause of death. Due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, COVID-19 coded deaths were added to P&I to create the PIC (pneumonia, influenza, and/or COVID-19) classification. PIC includes all deaths with pneumonia, influenza, and/or COVID-19 listed on the death certificate.”
www.cdc.gov
Here’s a problem (from the CDC’s influenza reporting methodology page):
“Prior to the 2020-2021 influenza season, the NCHS surveillance data were used to calculate the percent of all deaths occurring each week that had pneumonia and/or influenza (P&I) listed as a cause of death. Due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, COVID-19 coded deaths were added to P&I to create the PIC (pneumonia, influenza, and/or COVID-19) classification. PIC includes all deaths with pneumonia, influenza, and/or COVID-19 listed on the death certificate.”
U.S. Influenza Surveillance: Purpose and Methods | CDC
Everything you need to know about the flu illness, including symptoms, treatment and prevention.
www.cdc.gov
Last edited:
From what I can tell from people reporting (those I know who have tested positive, trying to figure out what info could be coherent in the culture) covid isn’t deadly unless the body is already in a morbid, half dead state. Then any small disturbance can cause system collapse. Hospitalization contributes.
“What about the healthy people that died?” First, we have “health” wrong. Second, if a person is terrorized & then they spike a fever, panic will make it impossible to thrive. “What about the children?” I think if the food supply & environment are poisoning us then even children will have morbid conditions the culture will obscure. If you’re healthy I wouldn’t be terrorized. “But how do you know?” I don’t know with absolute certainty. But neither am I gambling. Empiricism is a way of life, not a method.
“What about the healthy people that died?” First, we have “health” wrong. Second, if a person is terrorized & then they spike a fever, panic will make it impossible to thrive. “What about the children?” I think if the food supply & environment are poisoning us then even children will have morbid conditions the culture will obscure. If you’re healthy I wouldn’t be terrorized. “But how do you know?” I don’t know with absolute certainty. But neither am I gambling. Empiricism is a way of life, not a method.
Yep, see my second comment to Fred above. Basically, IFR/CFR are the same statistical acrobatics as "excess deaths". True IFR cannot be known because it means knowing the full prevalence of a disease across a population at any given time (i.e. next to impossible), while also having strong confidence in the accuracy of the test used to determine cases (also impossible, with the current PCR fiasco). So, the only reliable death rate estimate can be post-factum, at the end of a given year, and only after herd immunity has been achieved since the death rate is different for a given virus when it first hits a population compared to after herd immunity is established. And even then, the estimate can only be reliable if the test used to confirm cases is/was reliable, which is definitely not the case with PCR, especially with cycle threshold of 40+. The CFR is less problematic because it only includes positive cases, but it is still stubject to the "magic" of the PCR test.
@haidut We must’ve been tapping out our posts at the same time b/c yes, we’re basically saying the same thing in different ways. The insidiousness of rationalism being substituted for empiricism. I work with a lot of otherwise intelligent people. But I don’t think they have a clue that their whole reality has been stolen.
BTW, I found out where I am that the testing isn’t serious. It’s an antigen saliva test where the collection is monitored by video chat. Only once you start spitting the monitors leave the chat to go start other clients. Not monitored. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the testing contractor agreed to minimize the positive returns. No one who got the vax would know that. That’s how you make a pandemic start & end.
BTW, I found out where I am that the testing isn’t serious. It’s an antigen saliva test where the collection is monitored by video chat. Only once you start spitting the monitors leave the chat to go start other clients. Not monitored. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the testing contractor agreed to minimize the positive returns. No one who got the vax would know that. That’s how you make a pandemic start & end.
EMF Mitigation - Flush Niacin - Big 5 Minerals
Similar threads
