Let me ask another question, besides the co-factor query that Jim asks.

The death rate is arrived at by taking the total number of people testing positive for COVID-19 who've died by the total number of people testing positive for COVID-19. It's this number that's being used to set people to panicking because the rate of death is so much higher than other flu-like illnesses.

As of March 5, the World Health Organization estimated the a 3.4% mortality rate of COVID-19 victims globally, up from the original estimate of 2% a few weeks before.

That is based on 2,114 deaths of the 55,924 cases reported , with 5.8% in Wuhan and 0.7% elsewhere in China.

"In China, the overall CFR was higher in the early stages of the outbreak (17.3% for cases with symptom onset from 1-10 January) and has reduced over time to 0.7% for patients with symptom onset after 1 February. "  ( WHO Director-General's opening remarks at the media briefing on COVID-19 - 3 March 2020 - World Health Organization, March 3, 2020 )

Thus, my question: Those figures do not include the many people who weren't tested for viral antibodies. Had testing been more widespread, especially because the rates of transmission of COVID-19 are so much greater than other viruses (at least that's how it seems today), and while we're dealing with the same number of deaths, the rate of death will turn out to be drastically less than what has been reported.

And, looking forward, as testing is begun in a nationwide manner in the U.S., the number of people testing positive will undoubtedly increase exponentially (hard not to increase given that there's virtually no testing done in the U.S. thanks to Bolton and Trump -- assholes!), while the number of deaths will increase much more slowly (linearly), bringing way down the death rate.

So, is that not true? What am I missing here?

Thank you .....


Mitchel




At 02:14 PM 3/14/2020, you wrote:
Before we throw out Jim’s thesis entirely:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/14/answering-the-coronavirus-puzzles-baby-covid-19
Look at the last two paragraphs:

"Other puzzles about the impact of Covid-19 have simpler explanations, however. For example, there is its tendency to kill men more often than women. The infection is fatal for 4.7% of men, but just 2.8 % of women, even though the gender balance for those testing positive is roughly 50:50.

Most experts say this is explained by the fact that in China smoking is primarily a male prerogative and this has weakened men’s respiratory systems and made them more vulnerable to Covid-19."
Having said that I dont thik it can be entirely pollution.
Jonathan
On Mar 13, 2020, at 6:26 PM, Michael H. Goldhaber <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Jim, how can you continue to peddle this nonsense? It may be , perhaps, that death rates from the coronavirus are larger in Wuhan because of the background air pollution. But that neither explains the sudden rise in illness before the steps at isolation there, nor the deaths suddenly related to cruise ships, nor the rise in Italy, nor in Kirkland, Washington, nor in many other places far less polluted. Anyone who takes you seriously might well put themselves in jeopardy as a result. Do you plan to take any responsibility if so?


Michael via iPhone, so please ecuse misteaks.

On Mar 13, 2020, at 1:47 PM, Jim West <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Virologists rarely if ever run toxicological controls, despite super-obvious toxicological causation possibilities -- and thus the term "virus" is super moot, likely just a cover story for air pollution in the case of coronavirus, etc.

https://harvoa-med.blogspot.com/2019/04/measlesbrklyn.html#novir

Correct?

:)

Jim West

-------------------

Mitchel, this part is not true:

If PCR was run for many more cycles it is likely that everyone would be positive.
Not least because every expt should have a control. If every known negative sample (the controls) tested positive then obviously the method would be invalid.
That doesnt mean people always do run controls but they should
J

On Mar 12, 2020, at 8:23 AM, Mitchel Cohen <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

If PCR was run for many more cycles it is likely that everyone would be positive.

Jonathan Latham, PhD
Executive Director
The Bioscience Resource Project,
Ithaca, NY 14850 USA

[...]

Jonathan Latham, PhD
Executive Director
The Bioscience Resource Project,
Ithaca, NY 14850 USA

Websites:
www.independentsciencenews.org
www.poisonpapers.org
www.bioscienceresource.org

Tel: 1-607-319-0279
Twitter and Facebook: @Biosrp
Please sign on to our mailing list: https://www.independentsciencenews.org/subscribe/

“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.”Edward Bernays, Propaganda