steveeq1

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

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.

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.

Of course it's media sensationalism.

As an exaggerated example, if I went to people who are all on stage4 cancer, and give them the corona virus, and 20% of them die, cnn will post something like "the corona virus kills 20% of people based on that sample!"

"Swine flu's" eventual death count ended up being 10x lower than what "the news" was initially predicting.

I have family members that "are severely at risk", which is why I am self-infecting then quarantining. That way, antibodies form naturally and I can't spread it to anyone, including my family and yours.

And the IFR keeps going down, not up.

Because the data isn't random enough? They've done random studies in a bunch of places, including germany and california and the IFR is about 0.2% - 0.38% and it keeps getting lower. There's no way in hell the IFR is 1.3%, that's just media sensationalism .

But the media is known to put misleading articles because it generates more ratings. This is no different.

We are going to have nowhere near 1-2 million deaths from this. and the IFR range is around 0.2%, not 0.5 - 1%.

And of course we will get herd immunity soon, with the way exponentials work. We are re-opening the economy! We will reach herd immunity far quicker than we will get a vaccine.

Stop spreading misinformation. There are studies in South Korea that reinfection does not occur.

The "conspiracy" theory is the news often exaggerates or gives misinformation on a particular subject to fulfill a particular agenda or make more money on ads.

This is hardly a conspiracy theory.

Which also can leave stuff out for sensationalistic reasons, which the media is known for. After all the deliberately misleading information from "the news", I no longer take it seriously and instead pay attention to peer-reviewed journals with public data.

The flu is a contagious disease, but you never made a big deal about it until now, at least according to your post history. The only reason you're making a big deal about it is because the media is. The IFR is actually going DOWN, not UP.

"man shot 9 times dies due to corona virus".

I question how the media is counting these deaths from corona virus. The infection fatality rate keeps going DOWN not up, in peer-reviewed journals. I suspect its going to end up like swine flu. The amount of people that actually die from this will be 10x lower than the initial media outlook, once you calculate the numbers honestly.

There's no way that it will reach 1-2 million.

My guess is that it will be the same thing like swine flu 10 years ago. The media will print out a sensationalized number, and the real numbers will end up being 10x fewer when calculated honestly.

"Man shot 9 times die of corona virus." I question how these numbers are calculated sometimes.

No, it's not a "significant risk". It's basically the flu to the young. The IFR for that age range in good health is basically in the ballpark of the flu, which is a rounding error.

Yes, but the great bulk of evidence pretty much that you won't reinfect once you get it.

Meaning it's not a big deal in any real world way.

But you "roll the dice" with every flu epidemic.

That's an outlier.

Stop spreading misinformation, there were studies in South Korea that say you won't reinfect after you get it. That's why the strong and healthy can help by self-infecting.

> I did the math last week, and 0.2% of New York City had died either from the coronavirus, or from something that was probably the coronavirus

"Something PROBABLY was the coronavirus?". So you're from the camp of "someone was shot 9 times, so he died from corona virus". I question the way you calculate the numbers.

Oh come on, you can say that for any flu epidemic.

Meh, the lung damage was "mild" in the bulk of the cases.

A "few weeks on the ICU"? Oh come on, that's melodramatic for the great bulk of the cases if you are healthy. You aren't going to spend "weeks" on a ICU, believe me.

self-infect and self-quarantine, so you won't accidentally spread it to the immune repressed or grandma or whatever. Not only is this not "unconsciounable", I think the opposite. I have great respect for people who put themselves out of their way to protect other, less fortunate people.

> Spending a few weeks in the ICU is a good way to bankrupt yourself on the path towards returning to regular work, let alone how hard a ventilator is on even survivors.

Ok, I'm willing to consider devil's argument, but this is just plain ridiculuous. The great bulk of infected people classsify this as "mild". If you're young, strong, and healthy, your chances of dying from this are basically zero in any common sense way. And far more people are going to "get bankrupt on the way to work" as you say using the current method. We're not trying to find a perfect solution, we are trying to find the better one.

Yeah, let herd immunity kick in so it's harder for the virus to spread and then STRICTLY quarantine the old. As in much stricter than what they have now. I realize that's not great for grandma, but at some point, society has to make a reasonable tradeoff. If you're young, strong and healthy, your probability of dying from it is basically a rounding error.

Yeah, but strong young healthy won't die from it, but grandma will. Best to self-infect and quarantine so you don't accidentily infect grandma. It's the civil thing to do.

Availability bias.

The infection fatality rate of someone in there 20's or even a teenager is basically a rounding error. The strong and healthy dying are the exception, not the rule.

Yes, a vaccine MAY be possible, but the news reports I'm hearing are wildly optimistic at best. It will also take an enormous amount of energy/willpower to quarantine until then.

It might be more economically efficient (and convenient) for the strong and healthy to purposefully self-infect, and build up anti-bodies naturally. Herd immunity will eventually be built and corona will no longer be a problem.