It's not a false equivalency because the claim being evaluated is that this IS the flu. No A flu. THE flu.
It's possible that it's something different, but it would be important to look at some data to make that determination. Do you see what I'm saying?
No, you're confusing coronavirus with coronavirus
Feline with feline
feline https://i.postimg.cc/mkYCTRJm/o-CAT-ATTACK-facebook.jpg
Feline https://i.postimg.cc/1t0b11WH/hqdefault.jpg
Size matters, eye trick intended...
Keywords:infection rate
The infection rate is a bad metric. They're just testing more and more people and using the increase in testing to justify a sense of "greater infectiousness". Is there even an "infection rate" statistic for the flu? I'm guessing not since very few people who come down with the flu even get tested. Some of the people who are infected with coronavirus (big C, little c, whatever same thing) but are "asymptomatic" probably just have the antibodies in their system because they had the flu in February.
Ask yourself whether your beliefs are falsifiable. How would you test the claim that this Coronavirus (big c) is distinct from the coronavirus (little c) present in season flu from previous years?
THe infection rate is a "bad" metric?
Wtf are you? It's a metric you shit stop trying to spin, it's a metric
>They're just testing more and more people
So What? That's the protocol, OF COURSE YOU TEST PEOPLE, ALL PEOPLE, so fucking what? Use it
(post is archived)