Hacker News Reader

I said "exaggerated example". And the cruise had a hugely disproportionate number of elderly people, which skews the "random" sample.

So yes, it's media sensationalism.

View on HN

The “it” you are taking about is a straw man interpretation. The figures are what they are. I never said the ship data proves that IFR is 1.3%, you just seem to have gotten triggered and said pointing out some evidence which could help determine what the IFR may be constitutes media sensationalism.

BTW if the at risk population is 10% and the IFR for that population is 10% and 0% for everyone else, and infections are spread evenly, that works out to 1% IFR. You have some things you’re very frustrated by, I can tell, but your attempt to substantiate your emotions with data criticism is not successful.

The true IFR rate is nowhere near 1.3% or even 1%. This, in the same way that the new york true "death toll" is nowhere near what they are reporting. It's a plain-old case of "man shot nine times dies of corona virus" headlines. These are just wildly exaggerated numbers through intellectually dishonest sampling that the media is incentivized to give.

You're just repeating assertions without basis.

My "basis" is peer-review academic journals. Not commercial media sources who are incentivized to sensationalize the numbers.

Of course it is.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com