Good morning fraggles
Too lazy to go to the gym today, have enough errands to run later and also a blog to fill with the silliest shit I can find. And what could possibly be more silly than the deadly pandemic of unknown origin we suffer right now?
This is a screenshot from hubby’s new smartypantsphone:
It’s all a sham! This becomes more and more clear with every passing day. An experiment in mass-formation and a clever money-making scheme by big pharma.
What else is new in the creepy world of Covidism?
Hah, we knew it, right? Let SA take the blame and ban them while the good European country of NL keeps quiet about the Omicron variant. π¦ Oh, did you know omicron is an anagram of moronic? The other two newnesses, well, take them with a pinch of salt or wot?
Again just very sparse news about Covid-19, but what bummerz they are. π¦
You peeps stay healthy in any way you see fit alright? Vaxx yourself, get b00sted, wear a mask and sanitize and don’t get close to other assholes in the streets. Or ignore everything, like the Swedes and have the same chances of survival as the more panicked public of, say, Germany and France, Italy and Spain.
But whatever you do, don’t stop reading Orca her blawg!
Sniff you later
yolo
Thar She Blows! 
When you present data, you might also cite a reputable source for the data, and you might also note the context in which the data are relevant. “Eurasia and Mutipolarity” sound official, but they are hardly a reputable source of scientific data. Rather, they are artists on deviantart.com.
The data you (and they) present come originally from this preprint meta-analysis:
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.08.21260210v1
Please read the comments below the article in order to understand why the data you present might not be reliable.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I know that the study is still under scrutiny but, come on, Stanford a joke to you?
LikeLike
It’s a meta-analysis. None of data are from Stanford’s own research. Rather, the numbers in your table are median values of weighted data from different studies in several countries. Stanford’s meta-analysis can only be as good as the underlying data.
The paper spends much of its analysis considering why the data from these different sources vary so widely. For example, the authors speculate that the incidence of obesity in a country may have something to do with the country’s infection fatality rates.
To answer your question, no, Stanford is not a joke to me.
LikeLiked by 1 person
(Sorry, I hit Enter before I had filled out my name, so I’m shown in the post above as Anonymous.)
LikeLiked by 1 person