You are confusing 'infections' with cases again. If after all my explanation you still cant understand the difference then you are literally too dumb to argue with.
>This doesn't mean anything. The question is how many of the infected die (you cannot accurately calculate the case fatality rate during an ongoing epidemic, but it's seeming to be about 5-10%, according to The Lancet.)
You cant know the rate until you know how many are infected. Any number is meaningless without that which you cant provide. Most infected people will never become a 'case' (as they have little to no symptoms) which will artificially inflate the mortality rate. If you still cant understand this and want to play your semantics game then you are either legitimately retarded or a paid shill so bye.
>The MSM have been pushing the opposite narrative for months. They only started taking it seriously in recent weeks. You've been manipulated by the MSM but you haven't really strayed from what they were initially pushing on you.
They werent pushing the opposite, they simply werent talking about it, no one was because we had virtually no cases in the west.
> I have cited the CDC, WHO and The Lancet.
What do you mean you have cited them? when did you cite them for your claim that it's essentially the end of the world? you only cited them for 'the number of cases' which I never even disputed.
>medical journals and the cdc
They are all using the same method he is, looking at confirmed cases not overall infections. It doesn't matter if he can find 100 people pushing the same number as he is. I am not questioning that number, im pointing out that the number doesnt mean what he thinks it does. It is the mortality rate when you are a confirmed case of cv19, it's not the mortality rate of having cv19.