The Hong Kong flu in 1967 killed up to 4 million people, and the world's population was less than half today's. When adjusted for population, that's more than twice the death toll of covid-19 so far. So the fake news is flatly and absolutely stating that covid-19 is the worst since WW2.
The most accurate statement is that covid-19 is much less dangerous than the 1918 pandemic, but so far is roughly equivalent to the next tier of pandemics that occurred in the 20th century.
TL;DR: Here's a link that seems exactly on point to rebut you.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-03-11/covid-19-was-far-deadlier-than-the-1957-and-1968-flu-pandemics
You just cited the CDC as an authoritative source, and now you're relying on a financial paper named after a Democratic presidential candidate that says the CDC can't be trusted? Nice level of consistency.
I don't see where the article says that the CDC can't be trusted.
The article is saying the CDC's numbers are wrong. It's not some obscure aside, it's the main thrust of the article.
There's literally no way any reasonable person could interpret it any other way. Rawma, you're lying again.
But since Pat now finds the CDC authoritative....
Where did I say I find them authoritative? For that matter, where did I say I consider them to be less than authoritative?
Oh, I didn't. I just pointed out
you were being inconsistent about using them as a source. I made no assertion about their authoritativeness, one way or the other. Rawma is lying again.
Pat might prefer to use other estimates (hedging with "up to 4 million"), but the current worldwide count may be much too low, as asserted in the following:
I didn't hedge anything. I was working with the 1-4 million range (which matches the range in Wikipedia, which despite its problems, is certainly more authoritative than an financial newspaper article on a disease), and assumed the geometric median (i.e. 2 million) when I posted, not the min. That almost perfectly matches the current worldwide covid-19 death toll, supporting my argument they were in the same tier. I didn't bother to adjust for changes in the world's population, which would roughly double the 1967 flu's numbers, so my bias was in favor of a larger covid-19 death toll. I also pointed out that covid-19 is still an active pandemic, so the numbers will increase, further favoring covid-19. In other words, I looked at the range of deaths from multiple strong sources, made the reasonable assumption the best number was somewhere in the middle, and made assumptions that favored the position I wasn't supporting.
In contrast, you're only considering the lowest number in the range, and even though it's from a source you consider to be an authority on pandemics and other diseases, you're rejecting their number as too high, and instead relying on an article in a financial newspaper. In other words, your biasing the data in your favor as much as possible, and when that doesn't work, you're rejecting even your own sources and relying instead on an outlier with no expertise in the subject.
And none of that is even relevant, because even if we use the lowest bound for the 1967 flu (i.e. 1 million), don't adjust it up for the increase in the world's population, and assume the covid-19 death total will double (in other words, favoring your position to the maximum amount possible), covid-19 will only end up being roughly four times as deadly as the 1967 flu.
Which perfectly supports my position, because all I was doing was making a distinction between the worst pandemic of the 20th century, and the 2nd tier. Even with everything biased massively in your favor, covid-19 still groups with the 1967 flu, not the 1918 flu. Which killed 20-50 million, and thus is a factor of 10 to 100 more deadly than covid-19 (the latter number is adjusted for population growth).
In other words, you lied about literally everything I said. Again. That's why it's worthless talking to you. There's no way to have a conversation with someone who lies about everything I say.
When someone posts "I never said that" as frequently, in response to enough different posters, then the more likely conclusion is that they routinely fail to make their meaning clear in the first place.
Or you're a liar, which seems overwhelmingly likely given your history.
Since the pharmaceutical companies are already protected from liability, that seems a bit redundant. VAERS is like an internet poll; anyone can post anything. The point is to investigate for actual risks; Pat incorrectly blames everything reported in the system on the vaccine, which is nonsensical. (Apparently there were 2 deaths in ages 1-2 because of the COVID-19 vaccine; I hope they are trying to track down whoever vaccinated a one or two year old.)
I never said any such thing.
Hmm.
Oh look, a CDC whistleblower says the vax death count is 45,000 in a new lawsuit
and immediately following Mistwell quoting that:
^ You do realize the number of vaccine-related deaths reported to VAERS is over 11,000? And for most vaccines, the estimate is VAERS only captures 1 in 100 deaths? 45,000 is a conservative estimate.
What is "vaccine-related deaths" supposed to mean? "Conservative estimate" of what? Are they caused by the vaccines, in whole or part? Without a pandemic or vaccine, many people, especially the elderly, would die. How much are you blaming on the vaccines? How many deaths would you find suspiciously excessive or suspiciously deficient?
Here is your lie that I disputed: "Pat incorrectly blames everything reported in the system on the vaccine".
Again, where did I say that? Because nothing you just quoted supports your lie.
Regarding your fear mongering about phase IV studies and the quality of data available, which you present no evidence of, I observe that the manufacturers of vaccines continue their studies (for both financial and regulatory reasons, whether or not they can be given a smidgen of credit for doing what's right), and the CDC asserts "Millions of people in the United States have received COVID-19 vaccines under the most intense safety monitoring in U.S. history." I fail to see why either of those would not qualify as phase IV studies, even if the ongoing studies are different than for earlier differently released vaccines.
You're the fear mongerer, not me. And if you fail to see how those don't qualify as phase IV, then it's because you didn't read what I wrote. I covered what phase IV testing involves, and it doesn't involve monitoring people for a few minutes after a shot and then giving them handouts, or elective and limited follow up by a few companies with no requirements or standards.
(I discovered why there are differing numbers given for deaths in VAERS; if I'm asked nicely, I might explain it.)
No thanks. Given your history, I wouldn't consider you a trustworthy source on whether or not it's currently raining.