Horowitz: One chart exposes the lie behind universal lockdowns

Conservative Review ^ | May 14, 2020 | Daniel Horowitz

[CheshireTheCat]

...Based on this serology test, they were able to determine that 3% of the population (at the time) were infected and were therefore able to divide the numerator of those who died of COVID-19 by the extrapolated denominator of those who were likely infected and break out the infection fatality rate by age group.

Study this chart for a few minutes and take in all the data – from the asymptomatic/mildly symptomatic rates to the hospital and fatality rates divided by age. You have to get to the 50-59 age group just to reach a 0.1% fatality rate, the level often cited as the overall death rate for the seasonal flu. Those are all lower odds than an individual has of dying in a giving year of any cause and in the case of an average 50-year-old, five times lower...

[wgmalabama]

Very good data.

[a fool in paradise]

“Bill Gates played on our fears”

[AllAmericanGirl44]

Gates is a pimp. Freaky dude whose wife looks like a dude.

[exnavy]

The Gates are evil.

[a fool in paradise]

Does he have any side ladies?

Rumors are he went to Epstein Isle

[Amendment10]

Thank you for referencing that article CheshireTheCat. Please note that the following critique is directed at the article and not at you.

The problem with demonizing lockdowns is this.

To be effective, lockdowns must start as early as possible in my non-medical opinion, or forget it.

But in this “Orange Man Bad” election year, Democrats had encouraged people to carry on normally with their lives, seemingly to spite PDJT’s declaration of national emergency, consequently missing the window for effective lockdown.

In other words, as consequence of lockdowns being ordered too late, many people probably locked down with people who were already infected and contagious.

Take vitamin D3 in my non-medical opinion, if you can find any.

Corrections, insights welcome.

Send “Orange Man Bad” federal and state government Democrats and RINOs home in November!

Supporting PDJT with a new patriot Congress and state government leaders that will promise to fully support his already excellent work for MAGA and stopping SARS-CoV-2 will effectively give fast-working Trump a third term in office imo.

[Vermont Lt]

I often wonder is these headlines are written with a understanding of the valence of their words, or...are they just ignorant?

Because if the articles are meant to be persuasive, they lose all credibility before you get to the first word of the story.

[brookwood]

The article states -
“As you can see, the death rate doesn’t even climb above .1% until you reach over 70,”
And when you look at the chart above that statement, it says for age 50-59, the chance of death is .14%.
For age 70-75 the death rate is 1.668%
What Flubros have in common is that they all seem to be incredibly stupid, and/or compulsive liars.
.14 is greater than .1
Or is it me?
https://www.conservativereview.com/news/horowitz-one-chart-exposes-lie-behind-universal-lockdowns/

[livius]

I see you’re infesting other threads that are rejecting your fear narrative. Look at the (real) stats and get a grip. But I feel sorry for you. It must be terrible to live in total media-driven fear.

[shanover]

It was all a HOAX! It was serious but immediately taken over by the left and globalists.

[Vermont Lt]

Ah, no.

I was making a comment about word usage. No the virus. Sorry to confuse you.

And why the anger? You should get that checked.

[SoCal Pubbie]

Speaking of word usage, shouldn’t that have been “NOT the virus”

[Vermont Lt]

I am glad you exist to check spelling.

[Swordmaker]

For age 70-75 the death rate is 1.668% What Flubros have in common is that they all seem to be incredibly stupid, and/or compulsive liars.
.14 is greater than .1
Or is it me?

Let’s look at the data in the two charts from the article to find out who’s stupid and/or a compulsive liar, since that’s where you seem to be getting your data:

Where do you see chance of death at age 50-59 is 1.4% in either of those charts? I, with a degree in economics and many classes in statistics which include reading such charts see both showing (First Chart) 50-59 cohort at 0.1032% and (Second chart, normed to match second chart period) (0.058% + 0.145%)/2)= 0.1015%, statistically indistinguishable significantly from 0.10% in each instance over the ten year age cohort of 50-59 years of age (percentage differences of 1/1000 of a percentage point or greater are simply noise).

[Don W]

0.1 is smaller than 0.14, and 1.66 is over ELEVEN times larger than 0.14. Flubros indeed. I’ll bet there are some folks who think that 1/4 is bigger than 1/2, too...

[Sicon]

Yeah, and a lot of those hippies are the ones championing the lockdowns today.

Miserable f***ing hypocrites.

[SoCal Pubbie]

Likewise.

[LastDayz]

“I’ll bet there are some folks who think that 1/4 is bigger than 1/2, too...”

I suppose it depends which Math is being used.... that new Math is certainly something else.

[Basket_of_Deplorables]

"Where do you see chance of death at age 50-59 is 1.4% in either of those charts?"

He didn't say that. He said .14%. You even quoted him. Look at your quote. And it's right there in the row of 50-59. And furthermore he's right about Horowitz's sloppy math.

"I, with a degree in economics and many classes in statistics which include reading such charts see both showing (First Chart) 50-59 cohort at 0.1032% and (Second chart, normed to match second chart period) (0.058% + 0.145%)/2)= 0.1015%, statistically indistinguishable significantly from 0.10% in each instance over the ten year age cohort of 50-59 years of age (percentage differences of 1/1000 of a percentage point or greater are simply noise)."

Wut?