Guidance and Visibility Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Guidance and Visibility

AAPL 278.86

+0.5%

Nov 28 12:59 PM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Henry Niman who wrote (124194)	11/30/2004 9:26:48 AM
From: Amy J	Read Replies (1) of 208838

RE: "Then the CDC/WHO divided the number dead by the number diagnosed, when most diagnosed had not been in the hospital long enough to die. Thus CDC and WHO generated an initial number that was artificially low" I noticed this too. Back when CDC was initially counting the death rate, I noticed their method was flawed and highly misleading by understating the deat rate - it was a ridiculous way to calculate the death rate, and anyone with basic mathematic skills should have caught their error. I think they were intentionally trying to minimize the situation. I knew their 5% calculation was wrong right away and had believed it was over 10%. It's interesting to learn that it was actually 15%. It is exactly this type of thing that actually made my trust in CDC/WHO deteriorate drastically. I don't trust them anymore due to their wrong calculation on Sars that intentionally minimized the situation. As well as the handling of the flu vaccine problem in this country - no less than after a Sars outbreak too. Regards, Amy J

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next