[flagged]
I find it worth mentioning that the conscious choice not to do this and argue with overall numbers is clearly showing a lack of integrity in the source aimed at pushing a predetermined narrative.
You can not in good concise pretend or even imply that this an evenly distributed risk. Be it among agegroups, comorbidities or among the time axis since the start of the pandemic.
And to give some food for thought, people will reliably overcorrect to adapt for that distortion in their sense making process. Its how a justified loss in credibility looks like and influences peoples behavior.
The only one arguing with the well studied is you.
That’s you. You imply IFR and now admit it is at least 5-10x lower.
You are not arguing in good faith.
It is verifiably true that the death rate of covid is 1.1% in the U.S. Do you have a different definition of "death rate"?
> now admit it is at least 5-10x lower Never did I say anything to this effect. So who is really arguing in bad faith?
You linked to CFR data yet frame it as IFR, this is like an amateur level discussion if we are back to discussion IFR and CFR. I don’t even know where to start if that is where we are at.
I have been thinking about this a bit, i believe the pandemic (and this conversation) has been a great example for the general limits of distributed sensemaking and how it breaks down at communicating (and capsuling) all the relevant aspects and perspectives to a topic or statement.
I think in the end everyone has their map of the problem and we are failing (due to the limited bandwith of speech and text among others) at comparing why they differ where. Be it incomplete data, overlooking important perspectives or simply cognitive biases/ ego induced (not wanting to be wrong, tribalism...) errors.
Would you agree?
In general people have very poor intuition around risks and orders of magnitude. With Covid this is truly extreme differences in risk, under 18 with IFR of 20 per 1M but over 65 with 90,000 per 1M. 4,500x different risk.