Infectious diseases are usually used as the literal definition of multiplicative risk.
Where do you come up with stuff? You always make my mornings :)
Plenty of regions had VERY VERY low cases, deaths, and IFRs (SK, HK, Japan, Aus, NZ, Singapore)
Places in the US had very low cases, deaths, and IFRs (San Francisco city).
You must be trolling - Wuhan and Lombardy (the first locations hit hard) were caught entirely unprepared. They imposed their measures much much too late.
And lastly the assertion that lockdowns kill more people is just hilarious - excess deaths (which you now refuse to discuss after being schooled by 5 people in the last thread) and provisional death data from the CDC show only minor changes in death from (suicide, overdose, cancer, heart disease).
Lead Foil Hat wrote:
2600 bro wrote:
Because fearmongers like you would make the same tired arguments. Do we need to go over excess deaths for 20th time for you :)? I am a patient person - don't worry!
China released an inactivated virus vaccine... fly over there and get it!? It's only 50-60% effective at most. The flu vaccine took years of engineering to be able to pump out a new one each year...
In response to DanM:
Multiplicative risk means that as the thing happens (people get infected) the risk goes up (unmitigated spread would lead to complete healthcare system collapse). So the 0.15% global IFR (low estimate for western countries but whatever) would be 5, 10, 20X? higher if we hadn't worked so hard on mitigation, vaccine development. There's a reason why Wuhan and Lombardy had 1-5% IFRs.
Lead Foil Hat IV wrote:
2600 bro wrote:
"I don't understand multiplicative risk" guy back for more!!
Love to see it!
"Global infection fatality rate is approximately 0.15% with 1.5- 2.0 billion infections as of February 2021."
A mass vaccination campaign using experimental vaccines when there are 150 deaths for every 100,000 infections.
Global population increased by 80 Million in 2020.
Again, you try to sound smart to shut people down because your argument is weak. There is no added risk if the children don't get vaccinated. KIDS are not getting sick....but they are sick of idiots like yourself demanding they stay holed up at home in isolation. You still have provided zero basis for bypassing patience, ignoring real scientific concerns of potential for autoimmune disease and think we must go against all reason and caution to vaccinate a whole group of people not affected by the virus....You are either crazy, really stupid yet somehow work in a lab so you think you are smarter than everyone, or you have profit motive pushing you to hype mrna vaccines is children. Why not just wait even a few months until we have vaccine using more time tested tech available? Most people probably don't think it is necessary but would go along with something more time tested.
Your statement on multiplicative risk is your assumption not a fact. It could have very well been zero and all of the mitigation efforts not absolutely nothing; this is crudely evidenced by that fact that regions that did very little had similar outcomes to those with heavy mitigation efforts. You can get all spun up and start spinning words into circles like yo usually do, but at the end of the day you are just making assumptions that contradict broad observations. Odd, you are oddly obsessed with yourself as being some sort of supreme intelligence.