Reddfugee42
@Reddfugee42@lemmy.world
- Comment on Sokath, his browser’s eyes wide open 3 days ago:
Sokath, his eyes opened.
- Comment on Twitch is limiting streamers to 100 hours of highlights and uploads 1 week ago:
I do considered myself entitled to people keeping their word. It’s obviously a dying belief however.
- Comment on Why were all the mods removed from this community today, leaving it un-modded? 1 week ago:
Yes, “do brown people deserve human rights” is just a “differing opinion” like if you like onions on your hot dog. Obviously a very intellectually honest term for the issue at hand.
- Comment on Hungary emerges as main roadblock as EU tries to close ranks on Trump 1 week ago:
Hungry is in favor of something or someone, that thing or person is probably fascist.
- Comment on Twitch is limiting streamers to 100 hours of highlights and uploads 1 week ago:
If someone says the show is starting at 7:00 and I arrive at 7:00 I expect their show to start within a few minutes. If they’re still checking to make sure things are working a half an hour later, they fucked up.
- Comment on COVID Mortality Risk Was Nearly Nonexistent, New Study Finds 1 week ago:
Here’s a detailed, point-by-point refutation of Ian Miller’s article based on the actual study and broader scientific understanding.
- The Claim That COVID Mortality Risk Was “Nearly Nonexistent”
What the Article Says:
“All of it stems from the assertion that COVID was a uniquely, extremely lethal virus. We knew long ago that The Experts were wrong about the mortality rate. And now we have more proof that their misleading estimates, which led to a complete societal breakdown, were absurdly, catastrophically inaccurate.”
Why This Is Misleading:
The article implies that early mortality estimates were deliberately exaggerated to justify restrictions. However, early in the pandemic, there was significant uncertainty about the true infection fatality rate (IFR) due to undetected asymptomatic cases and limited testing.
The 3.4% case fatality rate (CFR) initially cited by the WHO was based on confirmed cases at the time, not an estimate of the IFR. Later studies, including those by Ioannidis, refined IFR estimates as more data became available.
The study does not claim that COVID was “nearly nonexistent” as a mortality risk. It clearly shows high mortality among older adults, particularly those in nursing homes.
Context Matters:
The highest-risk groups were indeed at extreme risk, with 7.88% CFR among those 85+ and even higher in nursing homes (7.92%).
The public health response was based on the available data at the time, not hindsight. The precautionary principle dictated that societies take stronger measures until better data emerged.
- The Claim That COVID Mortality Rate Was “Always Exaggerated”
What the Article Says:
“A new study out from a team of researchers including Stanford’s John Ioannidis and Tracy Beth Hoeg examined the infection fatality rate in Austria, a country known for its pandemic extremism. And what do you know, turns out all those ridiculous policies and mandates were never justified.”
Why This Is Misleading:
The article conflates the Austrian study’s findings with policy justification, ignoring the actual reason restrictions were implemented.
Early COVID variants (pre-Omicron) had significantly higher IFRs than later variants. This study found higher CFRs in early 2021 before the Omicron wave.
The study itself states that immunization (natural or vaccine-induced) played a major role in reducing mortality.
Cherry-Picking Data:
The 0.31% CFR is an average over the entire pandemic—not reflective of the actual higher rates in early 2020 and 2021 before widespread immunity.
Mortality was high before vaccination and lower after, yet the article ignores this and instead claims that restrictions “were never justified.”
- The Claim That “Get Detected COVID Again in January 2022? Your Odds of Survival Were 99.93%” Means Restrictions Were Unnecessary
What the Article Says:
“By January 2022, when nearly everyone had been infected already, leading to increased natural immunity, and milder variants were more common, the detected case fatality rate was just 0.07 percent.”
Why This Is Misleading:
By January 2022, vaccines and prior infection had already dramatically reduced fatality rates. The article ignores the impact of vaccines, pretending that COVID was always mild.
The early waves had significantly higher fatality rates. The study found IFRs peaked in 2020 and declined over time, largely due to immunity.
Long COVID was still a risk, even for those who survived. Fatality is not the only relevant measure of harm.
Deceptive Framing:
The article implies that COVID was never dangerous based on 2022 data—ignoring that restrictions were enacted in 2020-2021, when mortality was much higher.
- The Claim That “The Great Barrington Declaration Was Right” and That Public Health Experts Suppressed It Unjustly
What the Article Says:
“This is exactly what the Great Barrington Declaration said as COVID extremism ran rampant in 2020. Protect the vulnerable, those in nursing homes and in higher-risk age groups, while acknowledging that younger people were at little-to-no risk.”
Why This Is Misleading:
The Great Barrington Declaration (GBD) proposed focused protection, assuming that only high-risk individuals needed to take precautions. However, this ignored major problems:
Uncontrolled spread risks overwhelming healthcare systems. Even with low IFRs for younger people, hospitalization rates were high, filling ICU beds.
Long COVID affects younger people too.
Protecting the vulnerable without broader public health measures proved nearly impossible. Many nursing home outbreaks happened due to community spread.
The study does not support the idea that GBD was the correct approach—it just confirms that mortality varied by age, which was already well-known.
- The Claim That “Vaccine Discrimination Was Scientifically Inaccurate” Because Natural Immunity Had a Lower Fatality Rate Than Vaccination
What the Article Says:
“Even more frustrating is that, while not definitive, the mortality rate for those with prior documented infections was just 0.03 percent, while it was 0.16 percent for those with prior vaccination.”
Why This Is Misleading:
The vaccinated group was older and sicker than the naturally infected group. This study does not compare like-for-like populations.
The study does not conclude that natural immunity was better than vaccination. It simply observes the data and acknowledges possible explanations, including the healthy vaccinee effect (healthier individuals choosing vaccination).
Vaccines reduced severe outcomes and deaths before widespread natural immunity existed. The article ignores that early waves saw far higher CFRs before vaccines were available.
- The Claim That “Restrictions Were Based on Lies” and That Public Health Experts “Refuse to Admit They Were Wrong”
What the Article Says:
“This study serves as yet another reminder of the stupidity of our ruling elites and their mouth-breathing devotion to listening to themselves, and only themselves.”
Why This Is Misleading:
Scientists updated their guidance as more data emerged. Early in the pandemic, with no prior knowledge of SARS-CoV-2, precautionary measures were reasonable.
Countries that did not implement restrictions (e.g., Sweden) saw higher early mortality rates compared to their peers. Sweden’s IFR was initially much higher before vaccines and natural immunity.
Public health guidance was not static. Masking guidance changed when evidence evolved. Vaccination strategies adapted to new variants.
The study does not conclude that restrictions were “based on lies”—it simply documents how mortality changed over time.
Final Verdict
What the Study Actually Shows:
✅ COVID-19 was most lethal to the elderly and nursing home residents. ✅ Mortality declined over time due to immunity (both natural and vaccine-induced), improved treatments, and variant evolution. ✅ Early IFRs were much higher than later IFRs, justifying early caution. ✅ Austria’s high testing rate provided robust data, but testing limitations remain.
What the Article Gets Wrong:
❌ It misrepresents early mortality estimates, ignoring data limitations in 2020. ❌ It cherry-picks later pandemic data to argue that COVID was always mild. ❌ It misrepresents natural immunity vs. vaccination data, ignoring age/risk differences. ❌ It falsely claims public health measures were unnecessary by ignoring early waves. ❌ It uses inflammatory language and political attacks, undermining scientific discussion.
This article twists legitimate findings to fit a predetermined anti-public health narrative. The Austrian study provides important insights, but it does not justify calling the entire pandemic response unjustified.
- Comment on Why were all the mods removed from this community today, leaving it un-modded? 1 week ago:
Today was a learning experience for you.
- Comment on Google's slow Chrome Extension reforms anger developers 3 weeks ago:
Image You don’t say…
- Comment on imagine 3 weeks ago:
They make more money suing farmers for accidentally growing patented crops from natural seed dispersal mechanisms.
- Comment on Colombian president says cocaine 'no worse than whisky' 3 weeks ago:
I think every time we talk about specifically why a certain drug is illegal, we should be required to compare it against alcohol and the damage that comes from alcohol and explain why alcohol should be legal but this other drugs should not.
- Comment on Trump: “The U.S. Will Take Over the Gaza Strip” 3 weeks ago:
I HOPE KAMALA LEARNED THE LESSON WE TAUGHT HER NOW HAHAHA
- Comment on Treyarch co-founder pleads guilty to grounding firefighting plane with drone during LA wildfires 3 weeks ago:
People always forget that costs us money. Unless he’s a continuing risk to others, let’s just cost him money.
- Comment on Nepal hikes Everest climbing fee by a third 4 weeks ago:
Eh, it’s always been for the rich, and the bodies still prove money isn’t everything.
- Comment on Google goes gaga over the Gulf of Mexico 4 weeks ago:
They sure seem excited to comply
- Comment on Transgender inmates panic as Trump's order sends them to men's prisons 5 weeks ago:
I like how you admit that it goes for everyone except the people it doesn’t go for. Solid grounding.
- Comment on Transgender inmates panic as Trump's order sends them to men's prisons 5 weeks ago:
Irrelevant. Sex isn’t physically/biologically represented until hormones start being produced well after conception. To argue this fact would be to admit that a fetus that physically represents a female by all possible physical traits can absolutely still be male if that’s what they feel like.
- Comment on NDIS participants can no longer access sex worker services through funding. Advocates say it's a 'deep betrayal' 2 months ago:
Biological imperatives are a thing.
- Comment on NDIS participants can no longer access sex worker services through funding. Advocates say it's a 'deep betrayal' 2 months ago:
How is disabled people safely and consensually experiencing a sexual existence not “normal and appropriate”?
- Comment on Give us your best infodump. 2 months ago:
That sucks. Thanks again!
- Comment on CENSORED!!!!!!!!!!1 2 months ago:
Just the weak ones. Collectively, your brain is now stronger.
- Comment on BACK IT UP 3 months ago:
It’s always lupus
- Comment on Is it worth it?? 3 months ago:
So what you’re saying, Dad, is it’s nascent and already faster? Gotcha.
- Comment on Terrified friends burn to death trapped in Tesla as doors won't open after crash 3 months ago:
In the future nobody reads
“the design of everyday things” apparently - Comment on your mom falls significantly faster than g 3 months ago:
It’s the mass that results in gravity, not the density. A giant cloud of gas will have the same gravitational effects as if it were compressed into its solid phase
- Comment on ... 3 months ago:
- Comment on Row as Starmer suggests landlords and shareholders are not ‘working people’ 4 months ago:
They do no labor, they create no good, they accomplish no service. Literal rent-seeking.
- Comment on Girl without smartphone unable to join in lesson — 'I feel guilty for not buying my daughter one for school' 4 months ago:
In the states that’s exclusively how it’s done. No classroom activity would require private ownership of technology.
- Comment on ... 4 months ago:
This is why the last step of science is broad consensus, which has solved literally every single example of bad science in this entire thread. All this means is people should pay more attention to sources.
- Comment on ... 4 months ago:
What methodology finally disproved that?
- Comment on 'It even breaks my heart a bit': Denuvo pushes back on its haters, says Steam forums are a 'very toxic, very hostile environment' 4 months ago:
