@TheMadPirate
Mostly because the virus went through a few mutations since then.
@alyx Doesn’t people become more resistant to variants of a virus in time when they develop natural immunity ?. You know, like influenza’s seasonal variants.
@TheMadPirate
Not necessarily, depends a lot on the mutations themselves. The real problem though is only a small percentage of the population had the actual disease, and developed natural immunity. And even for those, we already know that antibody number go down in time. In any case, relying on people developing natural immunity could translate to the pandemic lasting decades.
@coyote @TheMadPirate
There are more people who have died because there are far more people who are getting infected now, because the strain mutated to be much more infectious.
I've said nothing about the strain itself inherently more deadly, but dishonest people like yourself do nothing but put words in people's mouth.
I have no interest in any further conversation, because it would be pointless to talk to someone who does nothing but throw anything you can the wall, hoping something sticks. Your entire post is nothing but gish gallop and I have no interest in it.
If disease A kills 10 out of 100 people infected, that's a mortality rate of 10%.
If disease B kills 1 out of 100 people, that's a mortality rate of 1%.
Disease A has a higher mortality rate. It doesn't matter that disease A only infects 100 people and disease B infects 10000 people, we still say disease A has a higher mortality rate.
This is why you're a moron and why you're not worth taking seriously.
@alyx
You' just talking about things you don't understand. Of course, the mortality rate of the desease A is way lower than the mortality rate of the desease B.
You can't tell the mortaIity rate from the case fatality rate while these are totally different terms. That's why it's you who are not worth taking seriously.
@coyote @TheMadPirate