> Because we don't know what those numbers are. Ding, ding, ding! We don't know what those numbers are, so stop making stuff up and claiming the article supports your made up numbers. >We do know the documented numbers. Using those numbers I can easily arrive at 99% survival rate. The known numbers stated in this article reach a survival rate of 98.2%, not 99%. In order to get to 99%, you have to make up what the number of undocumented cases may or may not be. I notice, yet again, that you avoided actually quoting the article "describing COVIDs 99% survival rate". Edit: Oh, looky. You're going back and editing your comments again. Very disingenuous of you. Edit again: I see you added this gem to one of your comments: >It doesn't matter what X is. >34.3 million. 43.4 million. 100 million. >The answer is still 99%. You're too dumb to understand why. We already know that the survival rate for 34.4 million cases isn't 99%. Let's look at those other numbers. If X is the number of all cases and there are 610,370 known deaths, the equation for survival rate would be as follows: 100-((610,370/X)*100) Lets try plugging those randomly chosen numbers in: 100-((610,370/43400000)*100) = 98.59% 98.59% =|= 99% 100-((610,370/100000000)*100) = 99.39% 99.39% =|= 99%

> >the true number of infections is much larger than just the documented cases > > > > So, I just stopped at equal to the number of documented cases. Again, choosing whatever number you prefer and not one the article provides. I notice you avoided actually quoting the article "describing COVIDs 99% survival rate". >How would it be 99.6% (a case fatality rate of .4%)? >How? Why stop at the same number as documented cases? If we're pulling numbers out of our butts, I say the *much higher* case rate when accounting for undocumented cases is 150 million cases. 610,370 deaths divided by 150 million cases is a fatality rate of 0.4%, which is a survival rate of 99.6%. I can make up numbers that work in math problems, too, but I'm not claiming my numbers came from that article, just as you shouldn't be.

You quoted the one line of the article that says the survivability is more than 98.2%. I don't dispute that it's greater than 98.2% when accounting for unreported cases or even that the rate will continue to go up as more people get vaccinated. That is not evidence that the survivability is 99%. It might be 98.7%. It might be 99.6%. On the scale we are looking at, that is a sizeable difference. The article is not "describing COVIDs 99% survival rate" as you stated in the title of this post. If you want to support that claim, quote where the article describes Covid's 99% survival rate.

More than 98.2 does not magically mean 99. You can't just pull a number out of your rear end and say that is the number the article supports, particularly when the article is labeling the specific claim as misleading. What you say the article says and what the article actually says are two different things and that is misinformation, which is probably what you were banned for, not simply because you posted the article.

Was it "for posting an AP article describing COVIDs 99% survival rate" or because [that article](https://archive.is/ZPJUJ) actually says the 99% claim the article referred to is misleading? Perhaps it was because when people disagreed with you, you were demeaning, responded with personal attacks, and demanded they stop posting instead of having a civil discussion on the matter. Perhaps the fact that you edited your comments after they had already been responded to played a role. Censorship can be overreaching, but being dishonest about it doesn't solve the problem.