All results... including negative results are meaningful.
The peer review process does not guarantee anything. Rather, such process relies heavily on Claimed Authority... the so-called 97% consensus model.
I prefer to the Royal Society:
Nullius in verba
So far, the antibody data from several independent sources are indicating a much larger infection rate. Stanford is just the most recent, but there are other data sets...
So, if the infection rate is an order or two higher than what you've assumed in your paper, what happens to the claim of misinformation?
Please read my first comment again. You will realise that, even though I do not believe the 0.1% death rate, I accepted it for the sake of the argument. People are still dying en masse.
How many humans die each and every year from the flu?
How many humans who have died when infected with C-19 have Also been infected with some other virus and/or have had significant and many times deadly pre-existing conditions?
Where is the accurate count which shows clearly with scientific certainly that C-19 was the cause of death?
If you don't know... you are assuming and all assumptions are subject to confirmation bias.
Also, people with pre-existing conditions ... are still people. It's not okay to accept someone's death just because they had an immunodeficiency. It's not okay that someone who was infected with a virus they might have survived dies because they also contracted SARS-CoV-2.
Even if Covid19 only increases the likelihood of someone dying ... that is still an immense problem. If someone would still be alive without contracting the virus, they were still killed by the virus.
And again, I take the flu vaccine every year because too many people die. Bad comparison. Every loss by a preventable disease is a loss.
Also, people with pre-existing conditions ... are still people. It's not okay to accept someone's death just because they had an immunodeficiency. It's not okay that someone who was infected with a virus they might have survived dies because they also contracted SARS-CoV-2.
This is not a scientific argument.
One should not assume that someone who holds an opposing on a particular scientific point is somehow unemotional with regard to any particular issue.
When discussing a science paper, the science should be under discussion... not the morality nor the value judgement one may or may not have with regard to the subject.
And again, in my original answer, I assumed the study is accurate just for the sake of the argument. Because I was wondering what exactly you wanted to prove by saying that the death rate is supposedly so low. Covid19 still has a different impact than the flu.
I did not discuss the science paper. I discussed the point of your argument.
I mean yes, I just don't see how that statement is relevant here.
All results... including negative results are meaningful.
The peer review process does not guarantee anything. Rather, such process relies heavily on Claimed Authority... the so-called 97% consensus model.
I prefer to the Royal Society:
Nullius in verba
So far, the antibody data from several independent sources are indicating a much larger infection rate. Stanford is just the most recent, but there are other data sets...
So, if the infection rate is an order or two higher than what you've assumed in your paper, what happens to the claim of misinformation?
Please read my first comment again. You will realise that, even though I do not believe the 0.1% death rate, I accepted it for the sake of the argument. People are still dying en masse.
Where?
How many humans die each and every year from the flu?
How many humans who have died when infected with C-19 have Also been infected with some other virus and/or have had significant and many times deadly pre-existing conditions?
Where is the accurate count which shows clearly with scientific certainly that C-19 was the cause of death?
If you don't know... you are assuming and all assumptions are subject to confirmation bias.
I gave you the numbers in my first comment too.
Also, people with pre-existing conditions ... are still people. It's not okay to accept someone's death just because they had an immunodeficiency. It's not okay that someone who was infected with a virus they might have survived dies because they also contracted SARS-CoV-2.
Even if Covid19 only increases the likelihood of someone dying ... that is still an immense problem. If someone would still be alive without contracting the virus, they were still killed by the virus.
And again, I take the flu vaccine every year because too many people die. Bad comparison. Every loss by a preventable disease is a loss.
This is not a scientific argument.
One should not assume that someone who holds an opposing on a particular scientific point is somehow unemotional with regard to any particular issue.
When discussing a science paper, the science should be under discussion... not the morality nor the value judgement one may or may not have with regard to the subject.
And again, in my original answer, I assumed the study is accurate just for the sake of the argument. Because I was wondering what exactly you wanted to prove by saying that the death rate is supposedly so low. Covid19 still has a different impact than the flu.
I did not discuss the science paper. I discussed the point of your argument.