Best Source for COVID data is Alex Berenson

HugCuddle

Best Source for COVID-19 data:

twitter.com/AlexBerenson

Per CDC:

0-49: .05% * .65 = 0.0325% for IFR
50-64: .2% * .65 = 0.13% for IFR
65+: 1.3% * .65 = 0.7345% for IFR

Overall ages: 0.4%
Overall ages including asymptomatic cases: 0.26%

cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html

MonkeyNeedsAHug

Define “Best”.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/covid-19-skepticism-puts-alex-berenson-at-center-of-amazon-controversy-11591391956

Why is he the best? is his data the most accurate? is it kept up to date the fastest? does he point out issues with data from other sources that disqualify their finings?

During a brief view of his twitter I saw him bragging about being on Fox news a bunch and reducing an article down to a single line, and dismissing said article sarcastically due to that one line. The article says that the age of the people getting infected lowering is a pressing issue, and he dismisses it as if that doesn't have massive implications - IE, those people then being more able and likely to spread it to more and more people than older people would, and being more likely to spread it to other family members than the more at risk ones would be.

There are a number of posts with data being displayed but no sign any of them actually come from him/that they're reliable, he's plucking them from a variety of sites. Not to say they aren't reliable, but having data =/= that data is good.

Saying someone is the best source for data is a huge claim, and without backing it up you can't blame people for being skeptical.

geoff1000

I use Worldometer.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

deefine

Which one are you saying is best, Alex Berenson or the CDC?

UKGuy

@geoff1000 - that's what I use to see local and wordwide trends. We also have a local site in Arizona that gives us cases by zipcode.