[DannyTN]

1. The California study was retracted because the specificity of the test wasn't sufficient to justify the claims made.
2. What's the specificity of this test? Did they use the same test as California?
3. If valid, the test still shows 5 times worse than the flu.
4. If NY is at 14% and they need to be at 70% for herd immunity, then 5 times as many have to catch it. Or 4x more. Which would mean 5x as many deaths as they currently have, unless a treatment regime is found that works better.
5. NY is not representative of the rest of the country. It's been an epicenter. We can assume the rest of the country is far less than 14% infected.
6. Got Mask?

[brookwood]

“If valid, the test still shows 5 times worse than the flu.”
Actually it’s 20 times worse than the flu. The estimated mortality rate for seasonal flu is .1% of SYMPTOMATIC CASES.
https://www.nhs.uk/news/medical-practice/three-quarters-of-people-with-flu-have-no-symptoms/
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/2018-2019.html
But just like Covid19, the regular flu has non-symptomatic cases, estimated to be 75% of infections. So the infection mortality rate for seasonal flu is one quarter of .1% if you take into account everyone infected, not just those with symptoms. With Covid19 serology tests we are finding many people who are positive but don’t have symptoms. But for an apples to apples comparison with the seasonal flu you have to do the same thing, calculate based on all infections not just symptomatic infections. So, if NYC Covid infection mortality rate is .5% (actually they didn’t include probable deaths in this, which gives you an IFR of .8%), it is 20 times deadlier than regular flu.
.5% / .025% = 20 times deadlier than flu
.8% / .025% = 32 times deadlier than flu
Take your pick, its not the flu “bro” it is a monster.