alovas1980 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 31, 2020 4:09 pm
More fun: "
Coronavirus death rate is lower than previously reported ... The research, published in the medical journal The Lancet Infectious Diseases, estimated that about 0.66% of those infected with the virus will die."
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/03/30/heal ... index.html
0.66%, what a coincidence
Yeah, this will go down even more as time goes by, as more testing is done world wide. (if you believe the test are even working and there is a virus )
How WHO got 3.4% value just as the virus spread around the world and also from the article:
"
Early in March, for example, Dr. Anthony Fauci, the director of the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said that "if you just do the math, the math is about 2%.""
This is indicative of terrible science at the very least, and most likely manipulation. Fauci gives me the creeps, just like the head of WHO, both very shady. Dr. John C. Ioannidis at Stanford among others has pointed out the poor science and media hype, in a recent published article:
"
Coronavirus disease 2019: the harms of exaggerated information and non‐evidence‐based measures"
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs ... /eci.13222
The argument that a lot was not known about the virus at first, and the alleged secrecy with how authorities in China handled it, doesn’t hold. The global media, Fauci and WHO were touting 3.4% long after reports in overall mainland China were finding a fatality rate far less (around 0.4% iirc). In South Korea, where far more testing is done than any other country, they were finding a rate well under 1% as well. I remember talking to friends on social media about this (at the time), and they were in too much shock and fear from the WHO, CDC stats, media reportage, as well as Joe Rogan having that scientist on his podcast making similar dire warnings etc.—to even consider looking elsewhere.
Sky News admitted yesterday that the fatality rate this year from COIVD is going to be the same as flu... but only because people are staying home.
Ok, say there is a virus, and it has a low fatality rate, but enough of those that do get infected require extensive hospitalization and are a drain on resources, so we need to make sure that not too many get infected at once. The way it was done though, was exactly on script with this simulation done by The Rockefeller foundation back in 2010:
Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development
https://www.nommeraadio.ee/meedia/pdf/R ... dation.pdf
(The World Economic Forum, another creepy organization with ties to Event 201 and Ghislaine Maxwell's family is part of this.)
At the very least, the media, WHO etc. seem to be trying to create the narrative to match what that paper says, as if there was a true pandemic. What expert scientists like Dr. Ioannidis, with integrity, are finding and reporting, is that the data is insufficient and that the outbreak could have been dealt with in a less alarmist way, like protecting the vulnerable without having the harsh affect on human liberties and the economy, if proper science was done. Which now seems to be the case.
