ERROR 301 (@realcaseyrollins@pleasehug.me) @realcaseyrollins@gameliberty.club

@YourAnonRiots@mstdn.social Oh shoot I didn't know it was * that * expensive

BRO WHAT

@dielan @moonman 😂

@freemo @obi Yeah my bad. While they're from a scientific study, I suppose they're not scientists. It also should be considered that this hasn't been peer-reviewed yet. (IIRC there's a similar study saying the same thing that also needs to be peer reviewed.)

I would assume that the people who "previously thought" the numbers were lower were the people who provided the numbers to the government officials, who then announced them. IDK about the people who provided the data, but if the California government officials truly were sitting at home drinking beer, it would certainly explain a lot. 😉

@freemo @obi "USC and the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health on Monday released preliminary results from a collaborative scientific study that suggests infections from the new coronavirus are far more widespread — and the fatality rate much lower — in L.A. County than previously thought...The antibody test is helpful for identifying past infection, but a PCR test is required to diagnose a current infection."

I see no reason to disagree with this, nor any evidence that this is false.

@freemo @obi I mean, if scientists say "more people had #Coronavirus than we thought", I'm inclined to believe them, personally. But again, I respect your opinion.