The CDC's "Provisional Mortality Data — United States, 2022. gives the death data and causes of death of the entire population. However, if you want to know how deadly a specific cause of death is, you have to use the number of people who have the condition in the denominator, not the total population. For example, rabies only kills 0.000000606% of the population, but it is 100% fatal. Dividing the number of people who have died (1174570) from Covid by the total number of cases (108288061) is what gives the death rate (0.01085, or 1.085%).
I purposely use the term "death rate" rather than "case fatality rate." That is because a case fatality rate cannot be determined definitively without knowing the outcomes of all cases. Whenever I look at the Covid data, I can enter number of cases and number of deaths into my spreadsheet, but I do not know how many active cases there are or what their outcome will be. Hence, I avoid using the term "case fatality rate."
Anecdotes are not data. Anyone can say an anecdote and there is no way to confirm the story. In addition, anecdotes tell nothing about the incidence or likelihood of a condition. Data is collected through careful scientific inquiry. Was the person definitively diagnosed by a qualified physician using CLIA-certified laboratory testing? Was the outcome of that person's diagnosed condition compared to the outcomes of other people who have the same diagnosis? Was the sample size of people with this condition large enough to extrapolate from them to the general population of others with that condition? Etc. The results of such scientific inquiry range from case studies (which discuss one or a few patients in detail for the education of other physicians and scientists) to large scale clinical studies to population level analysis.
You object to the terms I use to describe those who create and spread antivax and antiscience misinformation. Okay. Those who create antivax/antiscience propaganda usually do have a scientific education, but they purposely misrepresent the science and use it to promote concepts that contradict the conclusions of the people who designed, conducted, and analyzed the research. For example, they might wave around a paper that discusses myocarditis cases following vaccination to "prove" how dangerous vaccines are. But those papers are merely case descriptions written so that other physicians have an idea of what to expect should they come across a case. The deception in such use of scientific data comes in the failure of the antivax charlatans to provide any context. They will never show you this paper, Risk of myocarditis and pericarditis following BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccination which found 79 cases of myo-and peri-carditis among 4,694,765 vaccine recipients, for an incidence rate of 0.00168%. They also will not divulge that the CDC found that People receiving COVID-19 vaccines are less likely to die from COVID-19 and its complications and are at no greater risk of death from non-COVID causes, than unvaccinated people. The charlatans phrase the misinformation in language that appeals to conservatives because they are very good at conning people and the best way to hoodwink someone is to appeal to their passions. It's what they've done for over 200 years. They get away with this because those they target are unlikely to read the scientific/medical literature, look up and analysis the statistical data, or read things like FDA decision memoranda.
I will not use terminology to describe the creators of antivax/antiscience propaganda that in any way implies that they are legitimate scientists. Cherry-picking data and presenting it out of context in order to scare and manipulate people is NOT the work of a legitimate scientist.
Not the parlance of "a legitimate scientist." Haven't read this sort of veriage in any journal. Or research paper.
FR is an anonymous forum, and you are as anonymous to me as am I to you. We both might have completed terminal degrees. Perhaps done post-doctoral work? We both might be simply opinionated folk. The last statement is very likely.
As I had written last comment, I write again in this: "I think our conversation is at an end. '"Charlatan' and 'pseudo' when flying in the face of sourced definitions is not a best strategy to convince."