The guy behind this study is the same guy who has said the IFR is .15% from the beginning. His studies keep getting shit on by other academics as being wholly fabricated and filled with bad math and conjecture. He is the original source of "no worse than the flu". How is this latest study any different from his past failures?
The guy behind this study is the same guy who has said the IFR is .15% from the beginning. His studies keep getting shit on by other academics as being wholly fabricated and filled with bad math and conjecture. He is the original source of "no worse than the flu". How is this latest study any different from his past failures?