>>7637479if you extrapolate the death rate out of confirmed cases with the consideration of the huge testing scandal, it means that the extrapolated numbers cannot be accurate. And that's ignoring the fact that the biggest hotspots for infection admitted that they cooked the books, which just completely throws out the ability to trust both numbers used to extrapolate the death rate. treating it like a fact without factoring in potential issues in procedure or margin for error isn't just bad science, it isn't science at all.
discussing the numbers with religious fervor and complete faith in the numbers with the assumption that anybody disagreeing with the numbers must be 'pro' or 'anti' anything is asinine. if you cannot question something, you are not attempting to seek truth, you are being dogmatic.
and that's putting the cart before the horse with the idea that the death rate is even a useful metric of anything. it has no relationship with the core problem of hospitals reaching capacity, or your chance of dying if you happen to catch it because its a combined metric. its sole usage is to make people scared.
and you straight up lied about "300 times deadlier." assuming the worst, it's only 30 by their figures. well, 25, now that the death rate dropped half a percent. when you're dealing with numbers that small, a tiny change makes a big difference.