For what definition of "significant" is it true that "99 percent of [Covid-19] infected people have no significant illness from it"?
Hoover-affiliated physician Scott W. Atlas wrote:
More importantly, it was never a policy goal to eliminate all cases of COVID-19. That is impossible, unnecessary and illogical, when 99 percent of infected people have no significant illness from it.
I suspect this one of those carefully crafted, politically minded pieces that is true for some definition of "significant" (which he does not define), but possibly misleading in some other sense. (Atlas et al. are also somewhat famous for claiming that the lockdown has killed more people in the US than Covid-19.)
But to focus on my question, for what definition of "significant" is that quoted statement true?
(1)1 Comments
Sorted by latest first Latest Oldest Best
Edited to correct misunderstanding of the question (thank you, @Tobias Fritz.)
According to the CDC, 2,886,267 people in the US have tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, of which 129,811 have died (which is likely a conservative number).
That means that 4.5% of infected persons die from the infection (129811 is 4.4975395554188% of 2886267.)
You ask
...for what definition of "significant" is that quoted statement [that 99 percent of infected people have no significant illness from it] true?
It would need to be more significant than death for that statement to be true, since the death rate exceeds 1% by about 4.5 times.
Terms of Use Privacy policy Contact About Cancellation policy © freshhoot.com2025 All Rights reserved.