COVID-19 Is Probably 99% Survivable for Most Age Groups, but PolitiFact Rated This False

The suggestion that a person can't make any reasonable guesses about his own likelihood of survival is misleading.


A viral Instagram post claimed that COVID-19 is 99 percent survivable for most age groups—the elderly being an important exception. The post cited projections from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), but was flagged as misinformation by the social media site and rated "false" by the Poynter Institute's PolitiFact.

That's a curious verdict, since the underlying claim is likely true. While estimates of COVID-19's infection fatality rate (IFR) range from study to study, the expert consensus does indeed place the death rate at below 1 percent for most age groups.

PolitiFact is correct that the CDC's September 2020 modeling projections should not be used to calculate the IFR. The post also erred in comparing the vaccine efficacy rate of 94 percent to the COVID-19 survivability rate. This is an apples and oranges comparison; it does not mean that the average person's natural immune response is better at fighting the disease than the vaccines. At present, the overwhelming majority of hospitalized COVID-19 patients are unvaccinated. Since the beginning of the year, 98 percent of COVID-19 deaths in Virginia were among the unvaccinated. The vaccines are not in competition with the body's natural immune system—they render COVID-19 even more mild, and even more survivable.

To the extent the post is implying that most people have no use for the vaccine, it is indeed a piece of misinformation. But PolitiFact went much further, rating as false the very idea that COVID-19 has a low IFR for most people.

"Experts say a person cannot determine their own chances at surviving COVID-19 by looking at national statistics, because the data doesn't take into account the person's own risks and COVID-19 deaths are believed to be undercounted," wrote PolitiFact. "Survival rate data is not yet available from the CDC. We rate this claim False."

Deaths are probably undercounted, but so are asymptomatic cases where the infected person's experience with the disease is so mild that they don't bother to get tested (which would decrease the IFR). The national case fatality rate, which includes deaths among the hard-hit elderly population, is currently 1.7 percent, according to CDC data. (PolitiFact did not immediately respond to a request for comment.)

Moreover, the suggestion that a person can't make any reasonable guesses about his own likelihood of surviving COVID-19 given his age group and health status is misleading. Just 300 Americans under the age of 18 have died from COVID-19. Young people can and should infer that they have a high degree of natural immunity against a severe coronavirus health outcome. Policy makers can and should use this information productively: i.e., by reopening schools this fall with minimum restrictions in place.

It often seems like the mainstream media reporters, federal health experts, and policy makers who form Team Blue are so concerned about people taking the pandemic insufficiently seriously that they resort to needless fearmongering. For another example of this, see a recent New York Times headline about long COVID-19 titled "This Is Really Scary," which makes the as-of-yet completely unsupported claim that even mild infections are causing very serious "mental, physical, and neurological symptoms" in "many" children.

The vast, vast majority of healthy nonelderly people who contract COVID-19 will survive the illness. They should further improve their odds—and reduce their likelihood of infecting anyone else—by getting vaccinated, because even a low percentage of deaths can still mean a great many deaths, in absolute terms, if the infection rate is spiraling out of control. But we don't need to live in fear, ignorant of the plain reality that the infection fatality rate is, in all likelihood, somewhere in the under–1 percent range for most age groups.

NEXT: Why Do the Media Keep Uncritically Repeating Implausible Police Fentanyl Overdose Stories?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. You are not allowed to think for yourself.

    1. Yeah, Joe Biden is thinking for all of us

      1. That much bandwidth certainly could explain why he's so slow.

        Might also explain the crankiness.

        1. Fantastic work-from-home opportunity for everyone… Work for three to eight a day and start getting paid inSd the range of 17,000-19,000 dollars a month… Weekly payments Learn More details Good luck…

          See……………VISIT HERE

      2. I wonder why I had sudden urges to nap, buy depends and sniff young women’s hair.

    2. So that's what that smell was.

    3. Since I started with my online business, I earn $25 every 15 minutes. It sounds unbelievable but you won’t forgive yourself if you don't check it out. Learn more about it here...

      This is what I do................ VISIT HERE

    4. This is what Mormons are taught. Literally, one leader got up and said “the thinking has been done for you.”

      It is thus reasonable to assume that belief systems - like politics and religion - are cults that require authoritarianism to stay relevant.

      I think the exodus out of religion that we’ve recently seen has merely substituted over to politics. We must work to root out this scourge of belief if we are to keep our freedoms.

      Believers and partisans are trained to willingly cede those to the first charismatic personality with a voice.

  2. "It often seems like the mainstream media reporters, federal health experts, and policy makers who form Team Blue are so concerned about people taking the pandemic insufficiently seriously that they resort to needless fearmongering."

    It does, doesn't it?

    1. There is a certain neurotic paranoid personality type that has long been associated with voting for democrats, but there now seems to be a lot more of this type than before. I think it tends to occur in privileged educated people who don’t really have much else to worry about

      1. Yesterday I was reminded why I don't touch Facebook; my spouse showed my someone's post and I noticed one by a person who seemed to be nothing less than thrilled about a new mask mandate: "Time to mask up buttercup!" If it were me I would post recent articles from the NYT to the effect that there is little we can actually do to control COVID, and a CNN interview with epidemiologist Michael Osterholt regarding how useless most masking is. Then I would have called them a fucking idiot.

        That is why I don't do Facebook.

        1. It, along with Twitter, is a cesspool of fools.

          1. I avoid Twitter like the plague and only go on Facebook to like photos of friends and relatives kids or pets. FB keeps prodding me to post my vaccination record but I won’t allow myself to become part of any social engineering experiment

            1. It's all comes down to my team vs yours; and naturally "my" team is the smart set who follow "the science" and never cease to display their virtue about it.

              1. So does public safety require pregnant mothers to vaccinate their child ---before aborting them?

            2. FB keeps prodding me to post my vaccination record but I won’t allow myself to become part of any social engineering experiment

              There's plenty of idiots posting selfies with their cards and the lot numbers in plain view. You should copy one of those and see what kind of list you get put on.

              1. Should say, copy the info from one of those and give it to Facebook.

            3. I just avoid plagues. This includes the current one.

      2. Have you seen the video of the chick losing it in the elevator with the UPS driver? She epitomizes this phenomenon.

        1. Well, that was something special.

        2. Ironically, she then went out and rode a bicycle on a major thoroughfare.

    2. Why has the CDC stopped tracking breakthrough infections UNLESS they lead to hospitalization or death. Because asymptomatic/mild breakthroughs make the numbers less panic inducing?

      Why has OSHA stopped enforcing the law requiring employers to report vaccine-related "injuries" (when an employer mandates vaccination, negative side-effects may be considered the employer's fault and are thus required to be reported)? Because "OSHA does not wish to have any appearance of discouraging workers from receiving COVID-19 vaccination, and also does not wish to disincentivize employers' vaccination efforts. As a result, OSHA will not enforce 29 CFR 1904's recording requirements to require any employers to record worker side effects from COVID-19 vaccination"

      Data on COVID has been manipulated to conform to certain narratives from day 1. Coroners and medical examiners who objected were shoved away from the microphones and memory-holed.

      1. It's farcical that I have more trust in a Ugandan bush doctor than anyone in the CDC at this point.
        Not because I doubt their skills, but because I know their integrity.

  3. Fear is a path to control. More fear, more control. Once you understand that control and power are ends in and of themselves, everything else will start to make sense.

    1. I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.

      1. "...the little-death that brings total obliteration."

        According to the French [la petite mort] only if you're lucky.

        1. That would certainly change the character of the book.

          1. No man has survived the test of the Gom Jabber...

      2. "What's in the box?"


        "What's in the box?! " from an entirely different movie...but the answer might be the same.

        1. yeah... gwyneth paltrow!

  4. It's almost like "fact checking" sights like politifact and snoops are biased towards what ever the progressive narrarative of the day is.
    Of course robbie doesn't understand that when all errors favor one side then the reporter is a lying political hack, to be sure (wink wink) I am not sure if robbie is naieve or willfully ignorant.

    1. You can't bring facts to a political fight. The other side will just bring their alternative facts and attack your sources.

      1. Hey, eunuch's back to "bOtH sIdEz!" away coordinated, institutional leftist lying.
        Totes a surprise

    2. No enemies to the left.

      His career prospects are slim enough already.

    3. "I am not sure if robbie is naieve or willfully ignorant."

      Those are not mutually exclusive.

  5. Misinformation. It does not mean what Polifact thinks it means.

    Or it does, which is worse.

    1. Fake news. My Uncle Fester got COVID and survived, that means that the survival rate is 100% and the virus is a hoax.

      1. My cousin got COVID and died, that means the death rate is 100% and we're all going to die if the government doesn't do something about it.

        1. Now you are getting it.

          1. if you wanted to appear balanced in your approach you might have included that second example. Your rejoinder suggests that your intent was highlighting the generally applicable observation yet you only gave a singular characterization. If the general case of overreaction and subsequent improper conclusion was your intent - and NOT to denigrate only one contingent - you needn't have waited for someone to provide a counterpoint.

            1. english translation : you only appear to point out evil and hypocrisy on one side of any issue even when you hint that you actually see both.

    2. Percentage if you're below 70 yrs old?

      Hey, feel free to forfeit all rights and hide under the bed.

      Do not demand I participate.

    3. What's the IFR?

      1. That's instrument flight rules so you can fly on a foggy day or in the clouds

        1. Unless you're Kobe Bryant's pilot

    4. CFR is definitely higher than the overall IFR which looks to be somewhere around 0.3%.

    5. Chipper, surely you know the difference between IFR and CFR.

      1. No, he doesn’t.

      2. He doesn't know the difference between his ass and a hole in the ground.

    6. It's downright funny that Johns Hopkins is treating numbers from places like Eritrea, Myanmar, and Honduras as "data."

      1. I get what you mean, but they're probably more reliable data than what you get from China.

        1. Or the CDC.

      2. They're probably fairly reasonable for CFR as I understand it. It's not like Honduras can't run a test too, they just probably run many less than a lot of places so you're getting testing among a smaller more severe set of cases.
        I think that might explain the extreme national variation as much as anything since CFR really is just deaths versus confirmed cases.

        1. " fairly reasonable" is not data.


    7. The link shows the world-wide death rate is <250 per 100k population. The US experience is that the death rate approaches zero with vaccinated people. The CDC's website states the Spanish flu killed 50M out of 150M (33%) worldwide.

      The serious question is "When does this stop being a 'pandemic' and just something akin to the flu?"

      1. Day one.
        Just like the swine flu, the bird flu, and all the other years they told us "it will be a bad flu year, take precautions".

  6. Also, there is a lot of kids in the hospitals in Florida right now. Let's hope they all survive. The kids certainly don't deserve to suffer from the willful stupidity of their parents.

    1. Going by the numbers, the odds of them dying via lightning strike is equivalent to dying of COVID.

    2. LOL

      Then keep your bitch ass away from Florida

    3. "A lot". How many?

      1. “Many people have said”.

      2. 300X the number of gay people turned away from ERs by homophobic doctors.

      3. "Studies have shown..."

        1. "Top men say..."

          1. Allegedly…

      4. And why are they in the hospital? I'm pretty sure that if you are hospitalized for any reason and then test positive for SARS2, then you show up in the covid hospitalization numbers.

        1. You do; I've seen quite a few like that who come into the hospital for one thing and then learn they are COVID+

        2. Somebody linked to the CDC last week about how they were counting pregnant women who went to the hospital for pregnancy related things but tested positive once there.


            The number has slowly been creeping up (my first SS shows 22.7% on Dec 6, 2020) and is now over 30%.

        3. RSV. I'm not seeing a shred of data anywhere else in the world that "shows" the rise in pediatric cases like they are trying to show here.

          ...and coming in for something unrelated to C19 but testing positive in the hospital.

    4. If you weren't such a moron, you'd know that these "vaccines" aren't actually vaccines because they don't provide sterilizing immunity. They're prophylactics that mitigate symptoms, not prevent infection.

      1. Which is why the vaccinated need to get reinfected.

    5. Minor detail; Florida no longer reports by age.
      Go make up a number.

    6. Quantify "lot of kids", please.

    7. Is 172 a lot?
      Florida's population is somewhere around 7.75 million people with ~20% being children ... = ~>1.5 million children. So the % of children hospitalized WITH Covid is too small for my calculator to figure out... 🙂

    8. The number of children between the ages of 0 and 19 who have died from COVID rounded to the nearest whole number is 0.

  7. Early data had sufficient uncertainty for the mortality that there was legitimate concern in March of 2020.
    Had mortality looked more like 1918 pandemic, with especially high youth compared with adult and elder mortality, that would have been something to worry about. Or if it had the mortality of some of the avian flu's that have been kicking about the past decade. Or if it had been highly transmissible like Ebola.
    But as April 2020 came to a close, and "2 weeks to flatten the curve" allowed the health care systems to get back on their feet, the answer to the above was then known. It was in fact low overall mortality, the elderly needed protection (thank you governor Cuomo for all you did for nursing homes in New York), and that we in health care still needed a shit load of PPE, but not so much ventilators. Also we have learned that it sucks to be fat; no one wants to admit just how much of a risk factor overweight is for winding up on a vent or on full heart lung machines (ECMO). The public is unable to recognize just how much of a risk factor obesity is because so much of America is unable to see themselves as fat in the first place.
    Where are all of those half baked ventilators made by auto companies now?

    1. Perhaps one small silver lining out of all of this is a general greater awareness of personal health.

      1. You wouldn’t think so by looking at the lines of cars at McDonald’s.

        1. Or collectivistjeff's obese, panicky ass

        2. Yes you would.

          Few people are going into the McDonalds. You cannot in many places. McDonalds is one of the safest places to buy food. Even our last president an admitted germaphobe knew that,

      2. Why would I care about my health when I can lift a page from you and demand that everybody else should suffer to provide me the security I demand. Fuck off you dishonest butch.

      3. Pretty fucking hilarious coming from a self-confessed morbidly obese lardass who spent the last 18 months whinging like a flatulating vagina that every healthy person in society owed it to him to wear 2 or 3 paper masks and take experimental drugs to make sure he didn't get sick because of his high risk.

    2. "Also we have learned that it sucks to be fat; "

      Well you fat shaming son of a bitch you! Feelings matter you know, so don't be going on about obesity this and risk that!

    3. How about a fact check on the claim that COVID-19 deaths are "probably under-counted"? It seems that except for the first month or two, where they wouldn't even test people, deaths have been deliberately over-counted to include any deaths "with" COVID-19 rather than "from".

      Early on I had assumed that COVID-19 would be no different from the swine flu or bird flu or H1N1 scares, and that pandemics with high death counts were a thing of the past, thanks to modern medicine, sanitation, and the availability of high quality food (meaning cheap calories per dollar, with good distribution). But all of those things also set up a substantial target population of people with marginal health conditions or obesity or advanced age who wouldn't have been around to die from viral respiratory illnesses in an earlier age.

      1. If we tracked the flu like we do COVID, we'd have a hell of a lot more than 30-50,000 deaths counted from that every year.

        1. We'd be at 300,000 before we even got to actual flu deaths, because roughly 10% of the population gets the flu in any given year so you could expect roughly 10% of your deaths to have a tiny bit of flu virus in them.

      2. It is likely fact that they are slightly undercounted based on the number of excess deaths ovet past year and a half. The claims of dying with covid vs of covid was a reasonable hypothesis half a year ago but not now. Why? Because if people were dying *with* COVID but *of* other things and being accounted for as COVID deaths to any significant degree, we would see other causes of death drop drastically given the numbers off COVID deaths (it is the #3 cause f death this last year). If you die of cancer with COVID and it is attributed to COVID, then it moves the person's cause of from cancer to COVID. The COVID tally from dying 'with' but not 'of' COVID stealing from other causes of death. There is no such evidence of wholesale transfer of causes of death. it is clear that other causes of death did not show marked decreases over past years. Some decreases of some causes but as might be expected (die of COVID today, can't die of cancer 6 months from now) but even if all decreases are assumed to be dying with COVID, COVID is still a huge killer. This essentially rules out the 'with' not 'of' COVID claims of greatly exaggerated death rate. Rather there there are many more deaths than would have been expected based on actuarial data and these deaths ended up in the COVID death count.
        So why undercount? Because the excess deaths exceeded the number of people who officially died of COVOD by about 12%. Enough that if they were not primarily COVID, we have a second major unrecognized pandemic of some kind going on, one that killed people at the same times COVID was surging. COVID is the most parsimonious explanation.

        1. Undercount?


          The estimate for 2020 total deaths is 3.2m
          An average year would expect 2.9m
          We have 600k deaths attributed to covid, and only 300k "excess" deaths. Even leaving out lockdown induced deaths, covid is still being credited for double the fatalities "excess" deaths seem to indicate.

        2. Having a positive test within 28 days of death is not a scheme for under counting a respiratory virus.

          The delta in the excess death figures are lock down deaths.

  8. You can't handle the truth!

    1. And you can't tell it.

      1. Well, he could if you could handle it.

  9. I still haven't forgiven PolitiFact for giving Obama the Lie of the Year Award.

  10. The suggestion that a person can't make any reasonable guesses about his own likelihood of survival is misleading.

    Assessing your own level of risk and making rational choices based on said risk level and your personal level of risk tolerance is not acceptable citizen. You must blindly adhere to any and all government edicts from your betters! The Science is settled, so sayeth The Science! All hail The Science!

    1. The vast majority of people do not have the data or expertise to rationally asses their level of risk.

      1. And yet you're allowed to make decisions about hundreds of items every day where you don't have full data or expertise, sometimes with serious possible impact to your life.

        It's odd that this is only the benchmark for totalitarian govt measures otherwise nobody in Congress would be allowed to vote in economic policy and damn few would be allowed to vote to set health policy. In short, fuck off and die you evil cunt.

      2. Who allowed you out in public? Were your commects screened for wrongthink?
        Report to correctional services for a stern lecture and cupcakes.

      3. Stop projecting your ignorance onto everyone else, shreek. And learn how to spell assess. I know "asses" is much more your speed since you spend copious amounts of time consuming homosexual child pornography, but you've already been banned for that once.

    2. People can get ballpark ideas of their risk of dying if they catch COVID, but it is much harder to figure out ones risk of catching it. This is critical. If the chance of dying is 1:100 and there is 5% chance of catching (1 in 20) within a certain time frame, that is one calculation. If the risk is 1:100 and a 75% of getting it, that is a very different risk. Take 10,000 people. In the first case, 500 people get it, 5 die. In the second, 7500 get it, 75 die. Case 1 has 1 in 2000 risk of death . Case 2 has 1 in 133 risk of death. Same 99% survival rate in both. Huge risk of death difference.
      And this is ignoring the risk of ending up in the hospital ICU for weeks and the risk of prolonged COVID, with of which still fit under that 99%. Part of the reason we have a 99% survival for most people tis that we have gotten vastly better a treating COVID. People who would have died in early 2020 routinely survive today. We also need to look at hospitalization rates.
      And these explain why despite 99% survival, these are the reasons why the vaccine is so important. Sure you may have a 99% of surviving if you get COVID, but the vaccine drastically (by over 90% in some cases) lowers the risk of getting sick at all vs the risk without the vaccine. And if you do still get it it may lower the risk of hospitalization and death by a much as 3 orders of magnitude (1/1000th the risk). In the 10,000 person cases above, if all 10,000 are vaccinated, on average, no one will die in either case. it takes a 1:2000 or 1:133 risk to over 1:10000 risk.

      People who look only at 99% survival to make their assessment of risk are by definition not accurately assessing their risk.

      1. Sure, goebbels

      2. If the chance of dying is 1:100

        Imagine if the chance of dying was 1:10! Of course, the actual chance of dying is 1:10,000, but man, imagine if it was 1:1!

  11. An individual absolutely should have the right to decide whether or not to wear a mask, whether or not to get a vaccine, these things should not be mandated by the state. (Private property owners are a different case.)

    It extends from the general principle of private property rights. You ought to have the right to decide what goes on your body, or what goes in your body.

    However, when the exercise of those rights leads to costs borne by others, that leads to negative externalities. How should they be paid for?

    1. Slow up there Marvelous Marv, before they should be paid, we should determine whether the cost was directly and/or knowingly induced.

      If, say, a Governor accidentally locked a bunch of old people in a home during a pandemic, ignorant that it would cause more of them to catch the disease and die, well then, he's guilty but we don't exact a price for costs that no one could've foreseen. He shouldn't be held guilty if he institutes a lockdown and lightning strikes an old folks home and burns it down, killing everyone inside. He contributed to their deaths, but he didn't directly kill them.

      Now, if the Governor *knew* it would likely kill more people and you could prove that he knew by, say, discovering evidence that he was trying to cover up that he knew... well, then there should be a price for him to be so lethally cavalier.

      1. neg·li·gence
        failure to take proper care in doing something.
        "some of these accidents are due to negligence"
        carelessness, lack of care, dereliction of duty, nonperformance of duty, non-fulfillment of duty, remissness, neglectfulness, neglect, laxity, laxness, irresponsibility, inattention, inattentiveness, heedlessness, thoughtlessness, unmindfulness, forgetfulness,
        slackness, sloppiness, contributory negligence, culpa, barratry,
        delinquency, disregardfulness, inadvertence, inadvertency, oscitation

        failure to use reasonable care, resulting in damage or injury to another.

        1. Right, there's a case for negligence if he locks them in their homes because of a pandemic. But locking them in their home because of a pandemic and somebody dies from an awning collapse or electrical short? There are a line of people more directly responsible than him. He contributed, but he wasn't exactly negligent.

          Either way, and more importantly, moot point if you've got documented proof that he knowingly locked them in a death trap. Negligence can't possibly explain trucking Jews to the gas chamber.

    2. I could understand as a condition of employment, but color me skeptical that a private company should be able to demand medical records or procedures of their customers.

      1. Well I suppose that depends on what you think public accommodation laws ought to be. One libertarian position is that there should be no public accommodation laws at all - private property rights and association rights should prevail in all cases. If that is the case, then businesses would have maximum liberty to require anything they wished of anyone setting foot on their property - only vaccinated allowed, only men allowed, only Irish allowed, only whites allowed, only people who can hop on one foot allowed - anything at all. Because it's the business owner's property, and the customers are guests at the invitation of the owner.

        Personally I believe that public accommodation laws are fine, for characteristics that are beyond the individual's control. So no discrimination on the basis of race or gender or ethnicity. But if businesses want to discriminate based on anything else, I think that should be legal. Such as, the type of clothes that a person wears (formal vs. informal), or a particular belief system, or whether one is vaccinated. I think that is a reasonable and still firmly libertarian position on public accommodation generally. But, I'd love to hear what you think.

        1. I definitely fall more into the first camp, as long as the government isn’t coercing, forcing, or incentivizing behavior they want out of these establishments.

          That doesn’t mean I have to like or accept it if a business does something I disagree with.

          1. Then why are you skeptical that a business should be able to demand medical records of their patrons? In your view, shouldn't they be free to set whatever conditions they want on patrons visiting their establishments?

            1. Indeed businesses should be able to demand medical records as a condition of doing business. And reasonable people should be (and so far, are) able to tell the businesses to take a long walk on a short pier.

            2. You know, that is a good question.

              I guess if I had to put my finger on it, I’d say that I’m not keen on the idea because I don’t think that it would just happen organically in the market, especially given the heavy handedness the government has displayed over the last year.

            3. Weird that literally not one single business in this entire country ever required private medical information in order to patronize their establishment until state governments made it a requirement for staying open during the last 18 months.

              See the reason why that's never happened before is for two reasons. One, it's a violation of medical privacy laws including but not limited to HIPAA. Two, any business that demanded "papers, please" would have been met with hearty choruses of "fuck yourself blind" by their customers.

      2. Whether or not a private company should be able to demand medical records or procedures of their customers depends a whole lot on what the level of risk is for the company's employees and other innocent customers who happen to be shopping in close proximity to an infected person who claimed a right to not disclose his status. Considering how quickly illness spreads on a cruise ship, for example, I believe it would be negligent for the cruise line to not insist on knowing if their passengers are vaccinated and have tested positive when there is a known epidemic of a highly contagious disease with potentially fatal results. All those other passengers have rights too, and one of them is to not be negligently exposed to infectious disease.

        1. Ed is a virus.
          Ed's presence outside the confines of its home presents a negligent risk to people in public.
          Therefore, Ed should be forever confined to its home.

        2. Considering how quickly illness spreads on a cruise ship, for example, I believe it would be negligent for the cruise line to not insist on knowing if their passengers are vaccinated and have tested positive when there is a known epidemic of a highly contagious disease with potentially fatal results.

          Interestingly, one of the earliest case studies of COVID was a harbored cruise ship that was quarantined for 2 weeks. The results don't match up with your panic mongering. You might want to try to think of some different examples that can't be so easily blown up your retarded fucking asshole.

    3. This is not a negative externality.

      1. Relative to the common use in the context of the climate and/or global economics, like we pass off externalities to another planet, he's getting closer to a/the accurate example.

        1. A negative externality is a cost imposed on others by some economic activity. A cold virus goes from person to person no matter what. It has done that forever- even before people were performing economic exchanges. The virus is doing what viruses do.

          Even if you argue that the virus is wider dispersed because you go to the market or otherwise perform some economic activity, IT ISN'T AN EXTERNALITY. Because you are bearing the cost of your economic activity- as is everyone else engaged in whatever they are doing. As a part of going to their job, they are bearing a small risk that they will contract some sort of virus. So it isn't an externality- it is part and parcel of their economic exchange.

          But then Jeff tortures the definition even more by saying that it is by declining to vaccinate that we induce an externality. Get that? By *not* doing something, we have caused an externality. So we have gone from "a cost imposed on others through some economic activity" to "a cost born by you through not engaging in an economic activity".

          It's like saying "Failing to insure my Rental Car is a negative externality because I may get in a wreck and have to pay damages out of my pocket". It is just a nonsensical construction and use of double negatives.

          1. This is crucial to understand, because once you go down this path that Jeff is taking, you get all sorts of confused, tortured reasoning. The logic that says "Overt causes negative externalities by not vaxing" is the same logic that would produce "Overt causes negative externalities by not giving money to the homeless shelter."

            You cannot CREATE an externality by NOT doing something. Even if it is something that you really should do- like buying health insurance, vaccinating, sending your kids to school, etc.

            1. So basically the same logic that the SC used in Wickard and Obamacare.

            2. You cannot CREATE an externality by NOT doing something.

              And an 'externality' only makes sense in the context of relatively specific and local agents in a much larger group. A business and its customers can generate externalities. There are plenty of people who don't work for or patronize the business that can incur costs. The public cannot incur externalities in the same sense unless you're suggesting that there are larger swaths of people who aren't considered the public.

              It seems like about 90% of the time the term gets used, it's used by someone who seemingly failed out of an Econ 102 course and as a proxy for something between "things I don't like" and "toxic unicorn farts".

          2. Even if you argue that the virus is wider dispersed because you go to the market or otherwise perform some economic activity, IT ISN’T AN EXTERNALITY. Because you are bearing the cost of your economic activity- as is everyone else engaged in whatever they are doing.

            So let me see if I have this right.

            I am healthy, and I go to the market, interacting with lots of other people.
            I buy my groceries, and go home.
            Now I am sick, because I caught a cold at the market.

            I didn't go to the market to "purchase" a cold. I went there to purchase groceries. And yet here is this additional cost that I have to bear.

            But then Jeff tortures the definition even more by saying that it is by declining to vaccinate that we induce an externality. Get that? By *not* doing something, we have caused an externality. So we have gone from “a cost imposed on others through some economic activity” to “a cost born by you through not engaging in an economic activity”.

            No. What causes the externality is being sick in public, regardless of one's vaccination status. An unvaccinated infected person, and a vaccinated person with a breakthrough infection, all else equal, create the same externality. An unvaccinated healthy person does not create an externality at all, because no one is getting sick. Of course one's chances of generating a virus externality goes WAY DOWN if one gets vaccinated. But without a proper accounting of costs associated with this externality, then unvaccinated people are essentially free-riders. They have a much higher chance of creating an externality, but they do not suffer any of the costs associated with it, because they only suffer the costs of their own illnesses, not those of everyone around them that they infect.

            1. Have your groceries delivered.

              1. Don't go in public if you are sick.

                Why should *I* have to bear the cost of *your* illness?

                1. Why should I change my life to comfort a simpleton who’s afraid of a disease with a 99.99% survival rate, Jeff?

                  1. Thanks goes to Vulgar Madman for demonstrating is name is accurate via:
                    a) motivated misinformed minimization. Unless he is vaccinated , he doesn't have a 99.99% survival rate. And his actual risk is dependent on risk if of catching the virus. Who is the simpleton. I'd say it is the guy who can't do basic math and lies to himself, and can't understand simple concepts like it you are carrying a pathogen and engage in behaviors that spread it around, you are potentially harming others.
                    'I feel like shooing my glock in random direction when I go to the grocery store, it's my right. Chances are no one will die, I'm using full metal jacketed target ammo and if omeoje gets hit the bullet will probably over penetrate, and if they do kill some wuss its their own fault for not wearing body armor or staying home and having their groceries delivered.' Yes,the changes of severe harm are much higher in the case using bullets in place of microbes, to make the harm abundantly clear. But the reasoning is Vulgar Madman's. Strip it of claims if no real harm done and its speciousness is clear.

                    b) motivated minimization of others equal rights to to liberty. It's everyone else's job to change what they do and get out of his way because his liberty to do whatever the fuck he wants, harm to others be damned, is all the matters. He has decided his actions are no big deal and all must accept it. Seems a lot like statism where Vulgar Madman takes on high level state-actor power

                    1. Fuck you, Dr. Radium, you don't get to take away others' rights because you're a weak and neurotic totalitarian.
                      You really don't see the reckoning you're forcing?
                      You are a virus that must be defended against. You won't have to worry about anything after that.

                    2. Unless he is vaccinated , he doesn’t have a 99.99% survival rate.

                      True. He has a 99.97% survival rate. HURRY UP AND PANIC!

                      Fuck yourself with a running chainsaw you stupid piece of shit.

                  2. I want to apologize. I realized it is indeed possible that Vulgar Madman has a 99.99% chance of surviving getting COVID without being vaccinated. I did not account for the possibility that he is a little kid. Which would nicely explain all kinds of things. The egocentrism and almost solipsistic self-absorption, poor math and reasoning skills, interpersonal crumbling at any challenges.

                    This is a tough place and a tough time for a tween. Stuck at home with annoying parents and with crappy remote classes, unable to see your friends. No wonder he's all pissed off and motivated to minimize COVOD, Kids think they are indestructible. We should be more understanding. I'll try to do better. Sorry about being so mean kiddo. I'd have been nicer if I realized I was treating a kid as though he was an adult. My bad.

                    1. No need for the correction since you're still lying and using fake numbers you pulled out of your ass. The actual chance of survival if he was under 19 years old would be 99.9999%

              2. As far as I can tell by his own precepts and definitions, he's the only one who generated an externality. Nobody else was out in public with a cold except him.

                1. What? The externality was created by the person with the cold passing it around everywhere and imposing costs on people who were only there to shop for groceries.

                  1. You've already got a remedy available to you. Get a list of every person who was in the store at the same time as you and file a lawsuit against them for negligence. When you get that laughed out of court you can write a dissertation on "externalities" as they exist in real life.

            2. If the problem is that by going out in public, we may become, or cause others to become, ill, then none of us can ever again have contact with any other. Or we could put on our big boy pants and live our lives as we did before this @@#$! Covid stupidity.

      2. Here is a paper that discusses the externalities associated with public health.

        The basic idea is that one person's choices impose costs on unrelated other parties. Someone has to pay for those costs. Why should it be the person who did not create the cost in the first place?

        1. Because the risk of getting sick goes hand in hand with the freedom of movement?

        2. "Why should it be the person who did not create the cost in the first place?"

          But what does this have to do with Vaccination? The existence of a vaccination doesn't suddenly turn a healthy person who went to the store into someone causing externalities.

          I am willing to concede there MAY be a problem with someone who knows they are sick going out and engaging in commerce. But that problem exists whether there is a vaccination or not.

          1. Collectivistjeff isn't arguing that people who are sick should stay home, he's arguing that anybody, including the completely asymptomatic, may be a carrier of (this specific) virus thus don't have a right to exist in public, but may only be granted the privilege of living in public if they get the injection collectivistjeff demands.
            This is insanity, fundamentally rejecting the concept of individual rights and treating every person around one as a potential hostile threat.

    4. Agreed. But they also must accept that they might not be allowed in many public places if they make those choices.

    5. I was about to say something harsh until your last sentence, which changed by reaction to: Ahh, he gets it..

      The problem with masking and vaccination being purely personal choices is that when communicable pathogens are involved, choosing to make a choice that increases ones risk and then failing to avoid contact with other people arguably violates the non-aggression principle. A person who doesn't mask and doesn't vaccinate and then goes wandering around spreading their germs to other people is, with microbes as a weapon, swinging ones fist around such that will sooner or layer end up hitting someone elses nose. They are producing costs for others who end up involuntarily taking on more risk of illness because of their choices.

      Someone who avoids masks and vaccines and isolates themselves is none of my concern. But of they mingle with others, or even worse get literally in others faces because they disagree with the other persons choice for themselves, their choice imposes increased risk of harm on others. No amount of minimizing or motivated rationalization changes this. There must be a mechanism for the chooser to pay these costs.

      I have to admit I'm not sure how they could be accounted for, let alone how to get many of these people to pay the costs they create. But they must. If they do not, then it becomes increasingly untenable to reject action on the part of the government. Which is, of course, an invitation to overeach, whether the intervention asigns cost to the chooser in criminal or civil penalties.

      1. You must pay the cost your collectivist totalitarianism has inflicted on the rest of us.

      2. Hi JFree, it's nice to see you're a pretend doctor now.

    6. However, when the exercise of those rights leads to costs borne by others, that leads to negative externalities. How should they be paid for?

      By you paying higher insurance rates because you're a morbidly obese fat piece of shit with dozens of optional, lifestyle-induced diseases.

  12. Survivability % is highly dependent on probability of being admitted to hospital in the event you need oxygen.

    So what's the probability of being admitted to hospital now in different parts of low vax areas?

    1. You just want to deny them entry because you are a terrible person.

        1. There is no evidence that was due to anything other than a negligent hospital.

        1. From your OWN article:

          "A spokesperson for Grady said that while COVID is playing a part in the crowded hospital, being the state's largest level one trauma center, this is not uncommon - especially this time of year. "

          Again, you are here peddling panic. When are you going to change your name to JSafe?

          1. Whatever.

            Some of the Piedmont hospitals were also showing a total diversion Monday and unable to accept any EMS patients, including locations in Newnan and Fayette. Emory Decatur, WellStar/Atlanta Medical Center and Northside Cherokee were also showing this status on Monday afternoon.

            1. I repeat "this is not uncommon - especially this time of year". But keep peddling panic, JSafe.

            2. Whatever.

              Expertly rebutted, doctor.

      1. Or here

        Austin activates its emergency alert system. They had 6 available ICU beds in their entire trauma region a few hours - and ER's facing 2-3x normal volume every day.

        1. So what sort of patients are these hospitals full of? Through most of the past year and a half, the majority of hospitals have been under utilized. From one of your links:

          "A spokesperson for Grady said that while COVID is playing a part in the crowded hospital, being the state's largest level one trauma center, this is not uncommon - especially this time of year."

          It's the same where I work; the ER and waiting room are full beyond max, and we have a total of 2 patients who are COVID+

          1. In all those places - in the low-vax South - what is driving the volume increase for adults is covid. For kids in TX, I've also seen SCV - but that just means a double whammy for respiratory staff/equipment.

            Grady may well be different. It is the ONLY lvl1 trauma center in Atlanta area - and burn center. So it gets volume changes that have nothing to do with covid.

            Idk where you are. Most of the problems I see re covid now are the South.

            1. New York? California? Michigan?

        2. This is a good example of how people take info from one article to write a whole different article. The root article points out that while they are running short on ICU beds, they can expand capacity into surgical beds. It also points out that the primary cause of problems is not the surge, but a staffing shortage.

          But then people like you take this, write more articles and then pass them around uncritically, to imply that people will die because they cannot get hospital care. That is just not true. Hospitals run BY DESIGN at 80 - 90% capacity, with the ability to expand to accept surges, and doing load balancing across their partners. This is not a crisis.

          1. It also points out that the primary cause of problems is not the surge, but a staffing shortage.

            Which happened primarily due to cuts last year from cancelling other procedures in favor of coof preparation--which never actually happened.

            Ask JFart what happened with the emergency treatment center that was set up in the Denver Convention Center last year. He pointedly shuts up when that's mentioned.

          2. No it isn't, but that doesn't at all deter those with little knowledge of the matter from grabbing a couple of catchy headlines and playing a game of "Here, see!? It's every where!"

            1. The info isn't the headlines. There was a link in that Atlanta article to the hospital database for the entire state of Georgia.

              Feel free to judge the diversions and saturations and 'severe' status for EMS for yourself. No doubt you will however, like other commenters, simply ignore whatever doesn't confirm what you already believe.

              1. Impressive. Now let's compare the current numbers to the same date range 1 year ago. 2 years ago. 5 years ago. 10 years ago. Oh wait, let's not, because then we might not run around like terrified 5 year old children.

        3. To be clear, it isn't just COVID - that's only 14% of the cases in the trauma region, and they have many services still un-used including several hundred ventilators and and almost 500 additional in-patient beds. Probably the bigger challenge is the load with burn-out and nurse departures. Interestingly, there are other highly populated trauma regions with more elasticity, less demand. Crazy Austiners.

          1. Ventilators seem to be very available everywhere. It's ICU units and respiratory staff that seem to be the bottlenecks for delta variant

    2. Can't speak any specific hospital, but I can share that I used to work at a major (and well funded!) county public hospital and trauma center on the west coast. This was before the pandemic. It routinely ran a 99% of capacity most of the time. Except when it was over 100%, which it was several times a month and we'd get daily request to discharge patients if at all possible because they were literally backed up in the hallways of the ER. This was not considered unusual for large metropolitan hospitals.

      The concept of the hospital being full does not surprise me. Nor doe it surprise me that they might send home a young covid patient in order to keep bed open for an older sicker one. And if you believe some people here, why wouldn't they. He can't die. COVID is no worse than the flu (false), its all cooked up to seize control (its real, doesn't have to be fake for control to be seized), and young people don't die of COVID (not true, even if it is unlikely). They just did what the many facebook trained doctors here would recommend.

      1. During my relentless search for covid stats last year, I came across a state that accidentally left some truth on their page (NH I think). The hospitals' "green" status was anything under 98% full, and a note explained that hospitals frequently went as high as 105%.

      2. Can’t speak any specific hospital

        That tends to happen when you LARP as a physician, JFree.

  13. The people who want to be the gatekeepers of truth are always the last people you want doing that.

  14. 99%? Nice rounding down. For most people it is 1 to 2 orders of magnitude less likely to cause death.

  15. ""Experts say a person cannot determine their own chances at surviving COVID-19 by looking at national statistics, because the data doesn't take into account the person's own risks and COVID-19 deaths are believed to be undercounted," wrote PolitiFact. "Survival rate data is not yet available from the CDC. We rate this claim False.""

    Cut and dry to me. We don't know the actual death rate so they err on the side of caution. They even tell you why they did it like that.

    So any normal person that can read an article can see why they rated it as they did. Any jackass who takes headlines only might think differently but they're idiots anyway.

    But hey- good job Reason. You found them out and cracked the case!

    1. Geez, you are dumb.

    2. Its idiotic. Everyone's individidual survival rate is 100%. Except for a handful of unfortunates out of every 1000 it is 0%

    3. It's still not false, just uncertain. And it's not all that uncertain at this point. There seems to be pretty general agreement that the IFR is somewhere around .1-.5%, i.e. well over 99% survival.

    4. Sure, they do this discussion of why they did it, which is good that's a rebuttle. But it gets attached to the offending piece as "False" with some link to learn more. And the issue is we're boiling down things to absolute statements of fact far too often.

  16. I think it's time we start ignoring politifact. It's a garbage publication. Do we feel the need to talk about the latest headline in the National Enquirer? No, same with Politifact.

    1. You are very late to the game - - - - - - -

  17. To be fair, 99% survivable is a pretty damn low odds for a disease that spreads this easily.

    99% survivability for Ebola is not too mad, because it's hard to catch Ebola. 99% survivability for the common cold would be an international emergency. COVID-19 is much closer to the latter in terms of transmission, and thus the international emergency.

    Of course, we're getting past it. We have vaccines now. People, get the fucking vaccine!

    1. Did brandybuck learn to tie its shoes before or after hitting puberty?
      It's a toss up

      1. I once thought to myself about a co-worker: "I'm surprised he can tie his shoes in the morning." Shortly thereafter, I realized that he wore loafers every day.

    2. .. because it’s hard to catch Ebola.

      1. Stay the fuck out of Africa.

        Easy Peasy.

      2. It is. It's passed mostly by blood. Though the fatality rate is higher and it's scarier looking.

    3. The IFR is somewhere between like .04 and .5 percent depending on a multitude of factors (mostly age and obesity).

      Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t the flu have a pretty similar range, depending on the prevalent strain and comorbidities?

      1. You are wrong.

        1. Molly is incorrect

        2. He's not, but you're still a sick pedophile who got banned for posting child porn, shreek.

      2. "The national case fatality rate, which includes deaths among the hard-hit elderly population, is currently 1.7 percent"
        That number is an average over the entire 19 months of the pandemic and includes periods when the average US fatality rate was as high as 5%.
        The present daily CFR is roughly 2%. Influenza generaly has a much lower rate between 0.1% and 0.2% although the 1918 Spanish flu was much worse.
        There is not evidence that obesity is significantly contributing cofactor to the severity of the case. It is a significant cofactor for influenza.

        1. There is not evidence that obesity is significantly contributing cofactor to the severity of the case.


          1. Obesity Increases Risk of Long-COVID, Study Finds

            June 8, 2021 – Obesity -- an established major risk factor in the development of severe infection or death from COVID-19 infection -- also appears to significantly increase the risk of developing long-term complications from the disease, a syndrome often referred to as long-haul COVID-19, according to a new study.

            1. Why COVID-19 is more deadly in people with obesity—even if they’re young

              Since the pandemic began, dozens of studies have reported that many of the sickest COVID-19 patients have been people with obesity. In recent weeks, that link has come into sharper focus as large new population studies have cemented the association and demonstrated that even people who are merely overweight are at higher risk.

              1. CDC study finds about 78% of people hospitalized for Covid were overweight or obese

                An overwhelming majority of people who have been hospitalized, needed a ventilator or died from Covid-19 have been overweight or obese, the CDC said in a new study Monday.

                Among 148,494 adults who received a Covid-19 diagnosis during an emergency department or inpatient visit at 238 U.S. hospitals from March to December, 71,491 were hospitalized. Of those who were admitted, 27.8% were overweight and 50.2% were obese, according to the CDC report. Overweight is defined as having a body mass index of 25 or more, while obesity is defined as having a BMI of 30 or more.

                1. Study: Severe COVID, higher viral loads, immune response linked to obesity

                  Among US Military Health System (MHS) beneficiaries diagnosed as having COVID-19, obesity was independently and strongly associated with hospitalization, need for oxygen therapy, higher viral load, and an altered immune response, according to a prospective study late last week in the Journal of Infectious Diseases.

                  1. Obesity as a Risk Factor for Severe COVID-19 and Complications: A Review

                    Emerging data suggest that obesity is a major risk factor for the progression of major complications such as acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), cytokine storm and coagulopathy in COVID-19. Understanding the mechanisms underlying the link between obesity and disease severity as a result of SARS-CoV-2 infection is crucial for the development of new therapeutic interventions and preventive measures in this high-risk group. We propose that multiple features of obesity contribute to the prevalence of severe COVID-19 and complications. First, viral entry can be facilitated by the upregulation of viral entry receptors, like angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), among others. Second, obesity-induced chronic inflammation and disruptions of insulin and leptin signaling can result in impaired viral clearance and a disproportionate or hyper-inflammatory response, which together with elevated ferritin levels can be a direct cause for ARDS and cytokine storm. Third, the negative consequences of obesity on blood coagulation can contribute to the progression of thrombus formation and hemorrhage. In this review we first summarize clinical findings on the relationship between obesity and COVID-19 disease severity and then further discuss potential mechanisms that could explain the risk for major complications in patients suffering from obesity.

                    1. IOW: Cope, fatass.

    1. Well, that's going to take some deep-dive reading.

      1. Long story shot:
        Media has massively increased their usage of words designating prejudice (like racist, sexist, transphobic, etc) over the last decade, and despite instances of prejudice decreasing over that time frame public perception of prejudice has increased.

    2. So NPR is centrist,? Stopped reading at that point.

      1. Despite the bias, they deliver the data straightforward.
        It's not a good look for the left/media, though the authors bend over backwards to avoid saying so.
        Basically media is ramping up propaganda in direct opposition to reality in order to increase perceptions of bigotry beyond that which is present

  18. To the extent the post is implying that most people have no use for the vaccine, it is indeed a piece of misinformation.

    Free to swing your fists until it becomes an imposition on me, eh?

    Most people don't have a use for the vaccine. As pointed out, for *most* people natural immunity is more likely to fight off the initial infection and the abundance of breakthrough infections so shortly after getting the vaccine relative to the dearth of recurrence from natural immunity so much longer after infection strongly suggests that most people actually do have no use for the vaccine.

    Moreover, this just concerns the vaccine in isolation. Many people do have a use for a chickenpox/shingles vaccine, the vaccine gets much less useful if it has to be administered by firearm rather than syringe. It's not like the phrase "The cure treatment being worse than the disease" didn't exist until 2020.

    1. “The cure treatment being worse than the disease” didn’t exist until 2020.

      Yeah, but 2020 turned it into a blockbuster superhero flick.

      1. Treatment by far my fave Cure album.

  19. We really need to get around fact checking everything down to true or false. There's a big difference between fact checking and correcting some raw number from a report or something and disassembling a thought into what they think it means and why that is false.

    1. Getting rid of the "fact-checking" industry altogether would likely do more good than anything else.

      No one other than the left-liberal credentialed class takes those things seriously anymore.

  20. It's really quite simple. You're entitled to your own facts, but not your own opinions. Those facts which do not support the CORRECT opinion are now verboten.

  21. The answer depends on how you break the populstion down by age category. I have seen age categories from the CDC that includes as many as 9 age groups. Then the numbers look much different, because hospitalizations and deaths go up proportionally with age. Furthermore, about 20% of covid patients develop blood clots, and a significant number have lung damage (It has been found in a-symptomatic survivors as well). So the bigger picture is not limited to survivors alone, but should probably include those who "recovered" with damage that is persisting. Check out this link:

    1. The CDC link you have provided does not reflect any of the things you have stated. It is simply a cohort comparison using 18 to 29 years old as the comparison base. It is a take on risk ratio, and not a very good one at that.

  22. Actually, deaths have been proven - not asserted, but proven - to be OVER counted. With hospitals and MEs classifying everything from gunshot to drug overdose to heart attack as "covid" the true numbers will never be known but are likely a small fraction of the official count. Reason has run stories on this in the past and should know better than to allow such misinformation to creep into its stories.

    1. Opposite. It is thought by all the experts that covid deaths have been under counted. What you just stated was a Republican lie.

      1. Right, that's why the numbers are continuously revised DOWN. Fuck off with your ignorant totalitarian lies.

  23. It's true that children are suffering from more mental health problems, but this is not from the virus, it's from the effects of lockdowns, other restrictions, and mask tyranny.

  24. If you read the PolitiFact post it clearly outlines why the post was rated as false. They made up data that was not in the CDC references and misunderstood the rest of the data. They also left out context.
    It is confusing why so many Rs have a political interest aboiut lying about covid.

    1. Because COVID is what sunk Trump.

      1. Only by incompetence. Had he handled it differently he could have been wildly praised and saved many lives and helped the economy.

        1. What I mean is, Team Red has to continue to minimize COVID, because that way they can keep their narrative alive that "it's no big deal and the Deep State led by Dr. Fauci, in league with Chinese Communists, weaponized it politically to take down Trump by any means necessary".

        2. Uh, total contrafactual there.

          If Trump managed to kill Covid entirely and bring it's victims back from the dead and give every citizen a million dollars...he would not have been "wildly praised". The press first abandoned what they called "the impossible goal of perfect objectivity" and proceeded rapidly to "total disregard for reality or fact".

          Their rabid TDS has at least had the effect of showing how unworthy of respect or trust journalism has become.

      2. No, it was the fraud.
        You've now invited a reckoning that I don't think you're ready for.

        1. Yes yes, the massive, massive, Kraken-level fraud.

          1. Yes, massive fraud.
            30m more votes than any US election in history, with numerous behavioral and statistical anomalies, along with unprecedented last minute procedural changes, but you unethical totalitarian pieces of shit pretend none of that exists because you got your way, and you're currently destroying the country.
            I hope we meet some day.

      3. No.
        Covid was trump's golden pass to re-election. Instead of capitalizing on it he took the worst political power dive in 100 years

  25. "Experts say a person cannot determine their own chances at surviving COVID-19 by looking at national statistics, because the data doesn't take into account the person's own risks and COVID-19 deaths are believed to be undercounted,"

    Which is why "we" only use national figures to dictate national policy without any exceptions, especially including natural immunity through infection.

  26. If mortality were the only concern, than the death rate from COVID would not be a very great concern (other than for folks like me in our late 70s and up). However, increasingly data are showing that the disease, whether mild or severe has a significant rate of long term effects lasting at least months. Mental confusion, neuropathies, fatigue, lung problems, cardiac problems are some of these effects.
    As with many illnesses, death should not be the only parameter measured. It is the easiest and makes the best headlines. In many ways, it may be the least serious parameter on a societal basis.

    1. LOL. Sure it does. $$$

  27. Obese younger people underestimate the impact COVID-19 could have on them. Many of them have no clue.

  28. Politifact is no exception to the undeniable lefty-bias mass media outlets. As most useless, parroting, lazy, incompetent, arrogant, sh*tshow careers are. There's no motivation left for real journalism, no motivation for *creating*, no motivation left for being of *value*.

    Because the Nazi-Governments bottom line is Gov-Gun-Forces creates *wealth* instead of Value = Wealth.

  29. LIFE CHANGING OPPORTUNITY BE an Internet HOME-BASED real Earner.I am just working on facebook haf only 3 to 4 hours a Day and earning $47786 a month easily, that is handsome earning to meet my extra expenses and that is really life changing opportunity. Let me give you a little insight into what I do…..

  30. LIFE CHANGING OPPORTUNITY BE an Internet HOME-BASED real Earner I am just working on facebook 21695 only 3 to 4 hours a Day and earning $47786 a month easily, that is handsome earning to meet my extra expenses and that is really life changing opportunity. Let me give you a little insight into what I do…..

  31. When you can't trust anybody you can always fall back on your own empirical evidence. I work at a large facility with over 400 employees and we have about 100 contractors come in and out everyday. We never shutdown and didn't take any precautions until 2 months into the so called "pandemic". Then they started the social distancing. Then they started no meetings in closed rooms. Then they said sales people couldn't come onsite. Then they said we had to wear masks. Then they said we had to track and trace. About 6 months into we had all this nonsense in place. I also am part owner of a tavern and a small commercial brewery with a taproom. We had takeout service from the taproom and the brewery was shutdown about a month. Then we slowly started opening up at first just outside. Now we are full service inside and outside with no masking. Our small businesses are near a naval shipyard. We have a large diverse customer base. As of this writing I know one person who died. In the past two years this person was taken away unconscious to the hospital twice for major heart problems. I know one other person (72 years old) who spent two days in the ICU but recovered fully. I know a ton of people who got sick. Some took a month to get over it but they got over it. I know even more people who just seemed like they had a mild cold. I don't know anybody how has "long covid". I am of the mind that this is all a fraud. They seem to have taken common respiratory viruses, labeled them all covid, and convinced everybody they are going to die without a vaccine... and we all have to get vaccine "passports" so they can make sure everybody gets their vaccines and all future vaccines. This smells like Bill Gates's work. The establishment of a trillion dollar global industry. Looking over his past online speeches it just confirms my suspicions. Seeing that the vaccines don't provide immunity or stop spread... I had to keep looking around for what was working with this vaccine. I was late to the party but I see it was Moderna and BioNTech stock that was working. I immediately moved a substantial amount of my portfolio into BNTX. Sadly this was only June of 2021 but I'm still doing very well. Just wish I would have figured that out a bit sooner. I suggest people start looking at where the powerful are putting their money. Check who are the large holdings of promising biotech stocks. I don't think this thing is going away. It was too easy and too profitable. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Black Rock, Ballie Gifford. Ballie Gifford has a nice holdings tab that is easily searchable. They even have this nice declaration at the top. "Baillie Gifford & Company's largest holding is Moderna Inc with shares held of 45,883,213" That is worth $11 Billion today! They have paltry $1.5 billion in BioNTech. They have absolutely killed it! Will all the tracking and tracing. Supply side disruptions. Real estate fraud. etc. There is going to be a lot of money to be made from the great corona con going on. Do some research. Get in front of it.

    1. "When you can’t trust anybody you can always fall back on your own empirical evidence." This statement is just wrong. Unless you are using proper methodology your "evidence" will be meaningless.

      "Seeing that the vaccines don’t provide immunity" This statement is completely wrong. The vaccines are about 95% effective, which is very high for vaccines.

      1. 5% short of 100% and resistance to symptoms =/= immunity.

        1. Immunity is not an on/off invulnerability switch as many seem to think. Certainly not for COVID-19

  32. Politifact


  33. Since the beginning of the year, 98 percent of COVID-19 deaths in Virginia were among the unvaccinated.

    According to CDC's data, this is also wrong. Vaccinated deaths passed 2% of the total back in Feb and are about 15% in May. Reason is always pushing the big lies.

  34. Names of the folks who decided this at politifact? That can be very insightful on their aims..

  35. "[COVID] Deaths are probably undercounted..." Says who? What about all the terminal patients who died

  36. “[COVID] Deaths are probably undercounted…” Says who? What about all the terminal patients who died WITH COVID and not FROM it?

  37. Once again, Tuccille advocates getting the experimental biological agent, rather than building immune systems and saving lives with early treatment. HCQ and IVERMECTIN both work both as preventative and cures. AND Vitamin D3, Vitamin C, zinc, selenium, NAC and Quercetin all help build strong immune systems, not only against C19, but all other infectious diseases.

    EVEN AMONG THE ELDERLY, it is likely that 80%+ of lives lost could have been saved.

    1. Oh, and it is far more likely that C19 deaths have been grossly over-counted, not under-counted.

  38. on Saturday I got a gorgeous Ariel Atom after earning $6292 this – four weeks past, after lot of struggels Google, Yahoo, Facebook proffessionals have been revealed the way and cope with gape for increase home income in suffcient free time.You can make $9o an hour working from home easily……. VIST THIS SITE RIGHT HERE

  39. "Deaths are probably undercounted," my ass.

    From the beginning, deaths were attributed to COVID on the flimsiest of notions.

    In disputing the numbers, [county coroner] Bock explained that a couple who died of gunshot wounds late last month have been included in the state’s numbers. The state told Bock those deaths are included in the count because the two tested positive for COVID-19 within 30 days before their death.

    Bock called the state’s reporting “false and misleading.” (supposedly "corrected" later.

  40. Wait!!! So the logic actually is.... "Individuals are different than other individuals, and you can't make group generalizations with 100% accuracy?" Shocking!

    Don't tell the race-hustlers on NPR that individual Black people might actually be able to be successful when the entire Black race is (apparently, according to them) at some endemic disadvantage caused by unretractable history. Don't tell BLM that individual Black people actually CAN make it, and AREN'T subjected to hate every day--and we all want everyone to make it, regardless of their superficial skin color. Their world might crumble.

  41. Vaccination should be taken seriously. The pros and cons should be weighed and your doctor should be consulted.

  42. Thanks For Sharing. I Will also share with my friends.

    Home Loans

  43. Looking for Six Sigma Black Belt Certification? We offer Certified Six Sigma Black Belt & Green Belt courses from professionals.

  44. I have never read an article as good and complete as this.

    Lactose Free Formula

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.