On essential "PBS NewsHour" viewing 12.30pm SBS Saturdays and SBS On Demand http://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/program/pbs-newshour

on Trump vs Biden are

Mark Shields (left on screen - a center-right Democrat ex-Marine and Washington Post)

and

David Brooks (right on screen - conservative Democrat. New York Times)

Here Shields and Brooks discuss the Bob Woodward book on Trump intentionally "talking down" The Pandemic http://youtu.be/XOz4BNqeGHs?t=40m45s

They'll discuss much more on Trump vs Biden as the Wednesday Nov 4 (our time) Election draws near.

Dear mhaze,

Oh I am enjoying this.

So now you are contending that WHO didn't know the difference between CFR and IFR? While little keyboard warrior like yourself was fully appraised of it?

Get you hand off it mate.

You own link says “It’s no surprise that, very quickly, media around the world interpreted the news as evidence that the disease is deadlier than feared, and Twitter was buzzing with speculation about Covid-19’s real death rate.”

WHO were quite clear in what they said. It was very straight forward.

“Globally, about 3.4% of reported COVID-19 cases have died.”

That media and idiots like your president were so illiterate to the difference shouldn't be on WHO.

Back we go again to your comment; “WHO was giving a fatality rate of 3.4%. It was this number, which is now shown to be completely wrong,”

WHO were not wrong were they.

And you are again deflecting. Why did you try and shift the CFR metric I used to discuss Victoria to IFR to try and worm your way out of this?

Does Victoria currently have a CFR above WHO's designation of 3.4% or not. Pretty simple mate. Cough up.

Today/yesterday is/was the 19th anniversary of the horrific 9/11 tragedies in the US. Three thousand people were killed in those vile attacks, organised by al Qai'ida from their hideouts in Afghanistan, with Taliban connivance. Someone should inform the relevant 'leaders' about that link.

Three thousand people ! You have to go back so far to match that in terms of Covid-19 deaths, thanks at least in part - perhaps not entirely - to Trumpf's incompetence and childish desire not to hear about nasty things like sick people.

Three thousand ! For Covid deaths, you have to go back to around about last Tuesday or Wednesday to match that grim total.

Joe

"Oh I am enjoying this."

You enjoy making a fool of yourself? Well if you're too self-absorbed to even realise it, I suppose it might be enjoyable.

"So now you are contending that WHO didn't know the difference between CFR and IFR?"

That's not even close to what I said. With comprehension skills that abysmal, its little wonder this all goes over your head.

What I was saying was that at the outset, the authorities were unaware of the level of asymptomatic and mild symptom cases and therefore thought the CFR and IFR numbers were similar. Did you read the article I linked? Probably not. Did you understand the article I linked? Obviously not.

FFS I even picked out the most pertinent part for the slow of reading..."At the time, it was unclear whether the number of confirmed cases was very different from the number of total cases, so the WHO used confirmed cases to calculate how deadly the coronavirus was."

So they used a number that they thought was right but which turned out to be inappropriate for their purposes. You don't use the CFR in models unless it is basically the same as the IFR. (For example the CFR and IFR for breast cancer are virtually identical). They thought they were the same for the WuFlu as well and they were wrong. As were most other researchers. But by early April, when I posted, it was clear to all and sundry (except one or two low-information dills - no names but their initials are SR) that the IFR was significantly lower than the CFR.

Look SR, I get that the logic of this is too much for you. I get that as soon as numbers are introduced, your eyes glaze over. You'll just have to trust the experts that your don't use the CFR for models, you use the IFR.

You should also note that I didn't say they got the CFR wrong, I said they got the "fatality rate" (ie the IFR) wrong.

BTW, the NSW CFR is 1.3%. I assume you'll want to ignore that.

"BTW Can't help but notice that you're pretending to not notice all the monumental errors you made in this thread alone."

You see ** Foxy **, this is how SR thinks you should operate. Remember when he advised that you shouldn't admit error. Well that's how SR does it.

Make a monumental error (or in this case a series of errors) and then just pretend to not notice. Not only don't acknowledge the error, don't even acknowledge the existence of the erroneous post. Just pretend the original posts don't exist.

But it gets even more bonkers than that. Because you haven't acknowledged anything, you can later claim the opposite. So in a month or three if the issue gets raised again, SR will not only deny error but assert the opposite - that he was utterly vindicated.

Its that level of self-deception that SR follows.

mhaze,

How to be a grown up on this forum:

Replace "Denial" and blaming others

With - " OK, I admit it!" or

"OK Great!"