>>11497254You have the statistics completely wrong and have no idea what YOU are talking about.
>CFR confirmed cases is max 4% universally, not 10%Source? None, because these are crude biased sample estimates and will most likely change. You dumb fuck, he was giving an interval.
>The fact is you don't know what you're talking about. No one does. People are still arguing about the CFR of H1N1 - currently between .1% and 1% Epidemiologists and biostatisticians know what they’re talking about. And again, these are estimates and can change based on new findings.
>With the coronavirus, true case estimates could be far higher, putting the true CFR as low as .4%See this:
>The CDC estimated that from April 12, 2009 to April 10, 2010, there were 60.8 million H1N1 cases, with 274,304 hospitalizations and 12,469 deaths in the U.S. alone. Even if they didn’t have all that data, H1N1 has a MUCH larger data pool, and will provide much better statistics on the data alone. True estimates will be less biased, and saying we can have a better estimate with less data is idiotic.
>Please go back to high school and take a statistics class.You clearly only took a HS stats class, and none of the material stuck with you.
> So you are comparing total ESTIMATED flu cases/deaths with total CONFIRMED cases of COVID-19/deaths. Surely you can't not see the issue with this?Wrong. He was comparing the estimated parameter true rates to each other, while you are stuck not understanding sample statistics.
So:
>>11497159Based
>>11497076Fucking idiot.
