I agree that death estimation, whether for flu of COVID, has problems -- but that misses the point. If the estimates are equally bad, then you will be able to use them for comparison.
I understand how terrible flu estimation is, especially for 2009 which is just COVID Jr. (or the first modern time they tried to fake a pandemic). But I don't have the burden of proving they are equally bad. You are still missing the point.
If an agency gives a number for mortality for one disease and a second disease is discovered to be 85% worse than the number for the first disease, then it is up to the agency to reconfigure their estimates -- if they want to argue that Disease Y is not 85% worse than Disease X
This reply by Deep Dive is the logical response to DrBines and is valid. Not only is it valid, it contains an irrefutable truth value that cannot be challenged but, more importantly, Deep Dive eviscerates any challenge to this logic with this: "But I don't have the burden of proving they are equally bad." Set. Match. Game. And all done with repect. Let me but you a coffee, Deep Dive.
Flu deaths are bad estimates. We don't have any data on flu CFR, which doesn't make it any better. https://drbine.substack.com/p/gibt-es-uberhaupt-irgendwo-zuverlassige
I agree that death estimation, whether for flu of COVID, has problems -- but that misses the point. If the estimates are equally bad, then you will be able to use them for comparison.
How can you prove they are equally bad. According to this paper the range is huge: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3809029/
I understand how terrible flu estimation is, especially for 2009 which is just COVID Jr. (or the first modern time they tried to fake a pandemic). But I don't have the burden of proving they are equally bad. You are still missing the point.
If an agency gives a number for mortality for one disease and a second disease is discovered to be 85% worse than the number for the first disease, then it is up to the agency to reconfigure their estimates -- if they want to argue that Disease Y is not 85% worse than Disease X
This reply by Deep Dive is the logical response to DrBines and is valid. Not only is it valid, it contains an irrefutable truth value that cannot be challenged but, more importantly, Deep Dive eviscerates any challenge to this logic with this: "But I don't have the burden of proving they are equally bad." Set. Match. Game. And all done with repect. Let me but you a coffee, Deep Dive.
Thanks, Reggie.
I'll pass on the offer of bought coffee. Two decades of experience with the matter has taught me not to accept offers of good will from strangers.