"Accepted" is a vague term.

It's like 0.3% iFR on an overall population, scaled from minimal (<12) to significant at 20% (>85). Other factors such as comorbidities, vaccination status, and prior infection will affect that.

GeographyAg said:

---

Not sure what you're referring to either, but here is a link to Johns Hopkins data:

https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality

It seems to indicate a 1.2% death rate - but that's deaths to cases, not deaths to population, I believe.

---

Yeah, but that number is going to be proven to be way too high.

You talking vaccine mortality rate, right? We're still awaiting the FOIA for that.

GeographyAg said:

---

abram97 said:

---

GeographyAg said:

---

Not sure what you're referring to either, but here is a link to Johns Hopkins data:

https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality

It seems to indicate a 1.2% death rate - but that's deaths to cases, not deaths to population, I believe.

---

Yeah, but that number is going to be proven to be way too high.

---

I'm sure you're right, but the question was "commonly accepted" rate, right?

Do you have better data for an actual death rate - number of deaths per number of cases?

---

This thing has become so politicized that it's likely going to be years before the actual, truthful numbers come out.


Nobody wants to suffer the consequences of this truth bomb.

Clob94 said:

---

GeographyAg said:

---

abram97 said:

---

GeographyAg said:

---

Not sure what you're referring to either, but here is a link to Johns Hopkins data:

https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality

It seems to indicate a 1.2% death rate - but that's deaths to cases, not deaths to population, I believe.

---

Yeah, but that number is going to be proven to be way too high.

---

I'm sure you're right, but the question was "commonly accepted" rate, right?

Do you have better data for an actual death rate - number of deaths per number of cases?

---

This thing has become so politicized that it's likely going to be years before the actual, truthful numbers come out.


Nobody wants to suffer the consequences of this truth bomb.

---

I'm not here to argue that. That's a discussion for the politics board. (I agree with you, btw, but it doesn't matter.)

On this board when you ask a question about the "currently accepted data" you'll get a link to the currently accepted data.


Isn't that what the OP asked? Or was he just trolling?

Didn't I hear 75% of people that died had 4+ comorbidities?

GenericAggie said:

---

Didn't I hear 75% of people that died had 4+ comorbidities?

---

Idk. I've known plenty of old, fat people with high blood pressure, high cholesterol, survived cancer, and lived 10 more years with sound minds.

Kvetch said:

---

94chem said:

---

GenericAggie said:

---

Didn't I hear 75% of people that died had 4+ comorbidities?

---

Idk. I've known plenty of old, fat people with high blood pressure, high cholesterol, survived cancer, and lived 10 more years with sound minds.

---

So what? Is this proof of something?

---

Proof you read my post.

94chem said:

---

GenericAggie said:

---

Didn't I hear 75% of people that died had 4+ comorbidities?

---

Idk. I've known plenty of old, fat people with high blood pressure, high cholesterol, survived cancer, and lived 10 more years with sound minds.

---

Me too.

And none of them were worth destroying the economic future of their children and grand children for a few extra end of life years. IMHO.

GenericAggie said:

---

Didn't I hear 75% of people that died had 4+ comorbidities?

---

No. That's was 75% of the deaths of fully vaccinated individuals had 4+ comorbidities.

El_Zorro said:

---

94chem said:

---

GenericAggie said:

---

Didn't I hear 75% of people that died had 4+ comorbidities?

---

Idk. I've known plenty of old, fat people with high blood pressure, high cholesterol, survived cancer, and lived 10 more years with sound minds.

---

Me too.

And none of them were worth destroying the economic future of their children and grand children for a few extra end of life years. IMHO.

---

Not really my job to assign worth to people. It's almost as if you don't understand why you get banned.

Oh, I understand. People are not allowed to speak freely because delicate sensitivities might be ruffled.

That is pure weakness. You absolutely should be able to espouse an opinion about the worth of a human life.

We have become far too soft a people.

Okay, but my king did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but demonstrated his strength by becoming weak. Your argument, on the other hand, reverberates with the echos of every despot who has ever walked the earth. You are free to express it, but you surround yourself with ignoble company.

94chem said:

---

Okay, but my king did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but demonstrated his strength by becoming weak. Your argument, on the other hand, reverberates with the echos of every despot who has ever walked the earth. You are free to express it, but you surround yourself with ignoble company.

---

While we should follow Christ's example to ease others' suffering while on this earth - living with an eternal perspective takes the sting out of death: not the inevitability of it.

Nearly every apostle died a terrible death.

It isn't unchristlike to understand that his kingdom and his will are beyond our human context of breathing air, and I find it a bit bizarre to attempt to claim Christian moral high ground on a position of being 'anti death' rather than one that's 'pro eternal life.'

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

94chem said:

---

Okay, but my king did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but demonstrated his strength by becoming weak. Your argument, on the other hand, reverberates with the echos of every despot who has ever walked the earth. You are free to express it, but you surround yourself with ignoble company.

---

While we should follow Christ's example to ease others' suffering while on this earth - living with an eternal perspective takes the sting out of death: not the inevitability of it.

Nearly every apostle died a terrible death.

It isn't unchristlike to understand that his kingdom and his will are beyond our human context of breathing air, and I find it a bit bizarre to attempt to claim Christian moral high ground on a position of being 'anti death' rather than one that's 'pro eternal life.'

---

Being pro eternal life, if that is actually an identity, does not in any way allow Christians to abuse the temporal earth or assign man-made values to the souls who dwell upon it. Further, no people have ever been more in touch with, or accepting of, mortality than the church. Have you ever visited an old church? What do you find outside? The shaky theological ground on which I see so many Christians today desperately trying to conscript secular humanism to their own functional synchretism is astonishing until you see the lack of depth the average Christian possesses of God's word. Don't expect an epiphany when God's half of the conversation is right there for the taking. I stand guilty of this deficiency myself.