-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
US CDC Says Wearing Double Mask Reduce COVID by 95%. Sam Leong very Angry, Red Faced
- Thread starter Kraken
- Start date
He can kiss my ass
We agree with all the stringent requirement(s) the Government has introduced to limit the spread of COVID-19. We have not recorded any cases here at our hospital, so we can attest to the effectiveness of social distancing, mask wearing, and the current Vaccination drive.
If you wish to learn more, kindly contact us for an assessment:
https://www.imh.com.sg/
Institute of Mental Health
http://www.imh.com.sg/
Buangkok Green Medical Park
10 Buangkok View
Singapore 539747
tiong all need the mental assistance
you can add "its just a flu" crazies into that
tiong is the creator of virus, is plan to take over world, Pandemic make tiong stronger, not weaker
you can add "its just a flu" crazies into that
yeah, its only a seasonal flu did not age well. millions dead is not a seasonal flu
For those below 50 Covid is actually less lethal than the flu which goes to show that when the data is actually scrutinised a far clearer picture emerges.
The doomsday cult uses deaths amongst the elderly to push their agenda while conveniently ignoring the fact that many Covid deaths are actually caused by an underlying illness rather than Covid.
Here are the CDC estimates.
What Are the IFR’s:
The CDC has published its estimates for IFR’s based upon varying age groups. They have done this in ranges as there are a number of variables that impact the IFR. Those ranges are as follows”
Age Group Best Case Worst Case Best Estimate
0-19 .00002 .0001 .00003
20-49 .00007 .0003 .0002
50-69 .0025 .010 .005
70 + .028 .093 .054
https://humanevents.com/2020/10/20/...-intentionally-spreads-covid-fear-like-virus/
It is worth noting that the original World Health Organization estimate for overall IFR was .035, or 3.4%. As can be seen above, only in the over 70 age group does the IFR exceed that number and in no other age group does the IFR even come close. All of America’s original lockdown policies were based upon inflated numbers, perhaps intentionally, or at least negligently, inflated.
In research published on September 29, 2020 in the International Journal of Infectious Diseases (IJID), the IFR based upon review of various worldwide studies was determined to be “approximately” .0068 (.68%) with a variability from .0017 to .017 depending upon geographic location.
In the IJID published study, one very telling paragraph appeared when describing the research:
There are a number of methods for investigating the IFR in a population. Retrospective modelling studies of influenza, as a common cause of global pandemics, have successfully predicted the true number of cases and deaths from influenza-like-illness records and excess mortality estimates. However, these may not be accurate, in part due to the general difficulty in attributing influenza cases to subsequent mortality, meaning that CFRs may both overestimate and equally underestimate the true number of deaths due to the disease in a population.
In other words, estimating the real IFR is something less than imprecise.
Another study of cases in Geneva, Switzerland reported more age stratified Chinese coronavirus IFRs that are strikingly similar to those of the CDC. There numbers show an IFR for people over the age of 65 at 5.6% but for people under the age of 50 the IFR is a range of .0000032 to .000016. People “in between” at age 50-64 showed an IFR of .0014.
The Swiss study suggests that death for those under the age of 65 caused by the Chinses coronavirus is extraordinarily rare.
In his opinion piece, Freidan references the case of Dr. Adeline Fagan by saying “think of the tragic death of the 28-year-old obstetrician infected in the hospital she delivered babies in.” That case, which is every bit as tragic as is the loss of any life from causes other than peaceful expiration in old age, has been widely referenced by people trying to frighten Americans into compliant behavior over fear of premature death.
The reason the case is frequently cited is because of its near uniqueness during the pandemic.
As for the World Health Organization, the same organization that originally said the IFR was 3.4%, earlier this month at a press conference they issued estimates that reveled their revised overall IFR works out to approximately .0014.
Both the Swiss study and the study published in IJID reference the fact the IFR’s are impacted by a variety of factors not limited strictly to the presence of the virus. Some such factors include:
Regarding co-morbidity, the CDC itself has published data suggesting that only about 6% of people who die from the Chinese coronavirus expired exclusively from the disease. This means that roughly 94% of those who die from the disease have some other contributing factor.
It is worth noting that the original World Health Organization estimate for overall IFR was .035, or 3.4%. As can be seen above, only in the over 70 age group does the IFR exceed that number and in no other age group does the IFR even come close. All of America’s original lockdown policies were based upon inflated numbers, perhaps intentionally, or at least negligently, inflated.
In research published on September 29, 2020 in the International Journal of Infectious Diseases (IJID), the IFR based upon review of various worldwide studies was determined to be “approximately” .0068 (.68%) with a variability from .0017 to .017 depending upon geographic location.
In the IJID published study, one very telling paragraph appeared when describing the research:
There are a number of methods for investigating the IFR in a population. Retrospective modelling studies of influenza, as a common cause of global pandemics, have successfully predicted the true number of cases and deaths from influenza-like-illness records and excess mortality estimates. However, these may not be accurate, in part due to the general difficulty in attributing influenza cases to subsequent mortality, meaning that CFRs may both overestimate and equally underestimate the true number of deaths due to the disease in a population.
In other words, estimating the real IFR is something less than imprecise.
Another study of cases in Geneva, Switzerland reported more age stratified Chinese coronavirus IFRs that are strikingly similar to those of the CDC. There numbers show an IFR for people over the age of 65 at 5.6% but for people under the age of 50 the IFR is a range of .0000032 to .000016. People “in between” at age 50-64 showed an IFR of .0014.
The Swiss study suggests that death for those under the age of 65 caused by the Chinses coronavirus is extraordinarily rare.
In his opinion piece, Freidan references the case of Dr. Adeline Fagan by saying “think of the tragic death of the 28-year-old obstetrician infected in the hospital she delivered babies in.” That case, which is every bit as tragic as is the loss of any life from causes other than peaceful expiration in old age, has been widely referenced by people trying to frighten Americans into compliant behavior over fear of premature death.
The reason the case is frequently cited is because of its near uniqueness during the pandemic.
As for the World Health Organization, the same organization that originally said the IFR was 3.4%, earlier this month at a press conference they issued estimates that reveled their revised overall IFR works out to approximately .0014.
Both the Swiss study and the study published in IJID reference the fact the IFR’s are impacted by a variety of factors not limited strictly to the presence of the virus. Some such factors include:
- Density of population
- Overall quality of medical care
- Age demographics of population
- General health of population
- Presence of other negative health factors (co-morbidity)
- Viral “load” within the patients
Regarding co-morbidity, the CDC itself has published data suggesting that only about 6% of people who die from the Chinese coronavirus expired exclusively from the disease. This means that roughly 94% of those who die from the disease have some other contributing factor.
We appreciate your efforts to massage the figures for the Pandemic. Thanks to individuals like you, no one really knows just how deadly our custom ordered virus from China is. We asked them to design and release a virus that would murder many and create chaos, and as you can see, it has worked far better than we could have imagined.
We have sent your disinformation campaign over to Q as we think you can rise in our organization. Your talents for mayhem and subterfuge is wasted here. Why not join our efforts as a senior leader to spread more hatred and death? We think you can help destroy society.
LOL! sore loser, you have just lost ALL CREDIBILITY now, you are like the karung guni man being watched by the authorities for signs of dementia. LOL!
Show me where the data is wrong and I'll correct it along with my conclusions.
Come on where is your data? You can't produce it because you have not done the research. All you have is memes.
We have asked Q and he says you do not need to prove anything. Just continue your lies, hatred, and misinformation and we will support your crusade to murder as many people as possible.
The high mortality rate is in part thanks to true evil like yourself.
My point is simple and the data backs me up. The mortality rate isn't high in the first place when it is viewed in the context of overall deaths.
Orangeman is gone, get over it.
Your points are null and void. As I said, come up with better crap. Anyone can get better cut and paste better trollop than you, amateur.
No wonder everyone's gone elsewhere even EDMW is a better read these days
How much are the PRCs paying you to stop talking about them? Sellout.
You are entitled to your opinion and it's your personal choice to overreact to what is clearly a pretty mild disease when viewed in context.
You are also free to go to any forum you want.
And you are entitled to sink your forum into the abyss, my question is how much are the PRCs paying you to keep quiet?
Stick to the subject. Don't worry about my forum. How many people have died from Covid in your books?
Similar threads
