Fascinating New Study on What Happens to Vaxed Over Time

[mookiemcgee]

not me,nor did i wear a mask

You didn’t answer the question.

You’re so tough you never wore a mask.

Never? You never wore a mask not once not even for 5 minutes?

I call you liar.

He only wears masks at the sex cult gatherings

[saxitoxin]

There are details here that jp4 can parse (i.e. 68% of Americans are vaccinated so, if the vaccine were a 100% failure we would expect 68/100 deaths to be vaccinated, therefore, 54/100 is a TRIUMPH!!! [lol]) but, at the end of the day - cutting through the clutter - survivability for the vaccinated over time is getting worse while, for the unvaxed, it's basically stagnant. There are now two possible outcomes:

Outcome A: Vaxed survivability will continue to fall until it levels out at the same level as the unvaxed.
Outcome B: Vaxed survivability will continue to fall without a floor due to uncalculated L/T risks (e.g. the persistent concern about ADE).

To be honest, my bet is on "A," however, if I were vaccinated I wouldn't want to be in a position in which I'm taking bets to begin with.

[saxitoxin]

Meanwhile, a new study by researchers at the French College of Cardiologists presented at this week’s congress of the European Society of Cardiology finds that the risk of post-vaccination myocarditis in persons under age 18 is approximately 800 times higher than the usual incidence in this age group.

https://www.cardio-online.fr/Actualites ... i-COVID-19

[saxitoxin]

FDA vaccine committee member Dr Oveta Fuller, who called for vax mandates (IOW was an advocate of legalized assault), has dropped dead of unknown causes at age 65.

She's not the first to be Ovetafullered and won't be the last.

Tick tock, tick tock goes the clock on the time bombs that can't be turned off.

[saxitoxin]

Maybe Oveta outsmarted us all?

You can't die of COVID if you're already dead.

[jusplay4fun]

People in poor health are more likely to die. COVID makes that even MORE likely. And being older makes that EVEN MORE likely.

The vaccine CAN help, but does not change the odds enough to prevent ALL COVID deaths. saxi fails to acknowledge any of this.

I am sure many in bad health die of the flu and pneumonia this time of year, too. We cannot prevent all deaths from COVID or the Flu or RSV or other diseases.

Life is precious. Do well and live well and try to be healthy. Do things to keep yourself healthy. Enjoy life; enjoy the day. That is why it is call The Present.

[GaryDenton]

People in poor health are more likely to die. COVID makes that even MORE likely. And being older makes that EVEN MORE likely.

The vaccine CAN help, but does not change the odds enough to prevent ALL COVID deaths. saxi fails to acknowledge any of this.

I am sure many in bad health die of the flu and pneumonia this time of year, too. We cannot prevent all deaths from COVID or the Flu or RSV or other diseases.

Life is precious. Do well and live well and try to be healthy. Do things to keep yourself healthy. Enjoy life; enjoy the day. That is why it is call The Present.

Yes! And the percentages show the vaccine is protecting those not risking death to show how foolish they are.

[saxitoxin]

People in poor health are more likely to die. COVID makes that even MORE likely. And being older makes that EVEN MORE likely.

The vaccine CAN help, but does not change the odds enough to prevent ALL COVID deaths. saxi fails to acknowledge any of this.

I am sure many in bad health die of the flu and pneumonia this time of year, too. We cannot prevent all deaths from COVID or the Flu or RSV or other diseases.

Life is precious. Do well and live well and try to be healthy. Do things to keep yourself healthy. Enjoy life; enjoy the day. That is why it is call The Present.

Yes! And the percentages show the vaccine is protecting those not risking death to show how foolish they are.

If you consider a 99.3% survival rate among the unvaxed to be "risking death," you must have lived a very, very comfortable life.

[jusplay4fun]

People in poor health are more likely to die. COVID makes that even MORE likely. And being older makes that EVEN MORE likely.

The vaccine CAN help, but does not change the odds enough to prevent ALL COVID deaths. saxi fails to acknowledge any of this.

I am sure many in bad health die of the flu and pneumonia this time of year, too. We cannot prevent all deaths from COVID or the Flu or RSV or other diseases.

Life is precious. Do well and live well and try to be healthy. Do things to keep yourself healthy. Enjoy life; enjoy the day. That is why it is call The Present.

Yes! And the percentages show the vaccine is protecting those not risking death to show how foolish they are.

If you consider a 99.3% survival rate among the unvaxed to be "risking death," you must have lived a very, very comfortable life.

Many of the unvaxed are young and healthy. So, there is NO Surprise there, assuming that is true.

Any saxi, as per usual, totally ignores my answer to his earlier presumptions.

BTW, Note that saxi RARELY supports his allegations with any proof.

[saxitoxin]

BTW, Note that saxi RARELY supports his allegations with any proof.

The only allegation I've made is that Oveta Fuller is cooling in the ground. Here's proof:

https://medicine.umich.edu/dept/microbi ... er-18-2022

[saxitoxin]

This 24 year-old Korean Twitch streamer did an impressive death twirl right before he dropped dead during a live stream this weekend! (He was boosted 28 days ago and had no known health problems or history of drug use.) That guy could be an acrobat! I mean, if he wasn't dead as a doornail! LOL! (Warning: Disturbing death rattle.)



Remember:

- Last week the European Congress of Cardiology heard that anyone under 40 is 800-times more likely to have heart damage from the Pfizer or Moderna shots than an Under-40 who doesn't get the shots. [https://www.cardio-online.fr/Actualites/A-la-une/ESC-2022/Incidence-non-negligeable-myocardites-apres-3-dose-vaccin-ARN-messager-anti-COVID-19]
- A recent study by scientists from Johns Hopkins, Oxford, and the University of Washington recommends “against university booster mandates” due to the researchers’ findings that show mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine booster use in 18-29 year olds is associated with up to 98 instances of death, injury, or disability for every COVID-19 hospitalization they prevent. [https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4206070]
- Research published in September by leading Japanese scientists from Osaka University confirms the mRNA vaccines can lead to Antibody Dependent Enhancement, countering an early claim by the Pfizer corporate PR department that it could not. [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-19993-w]

[jusplay4fun]

BTW, Note that saxi RARELY supports his allegations with any proof.

The only allegation I've made is that Oveta Fuller is cooling in the ground. Here's proof:

https://medicine.umich.edu/dept/microbi ... er-18-2022

Let's see; did you document this stat or did you make it up?

If you consider a 99.3% survival rate among the unvaxed to be "risking death," you must have lived a very, very comfortable life.

[saxitoxin]

BTW, Note that saxi RARELY supports his allegations with any proof.

The only allegation I've made is that Oveta Fuller is cooling in the ground. Here's proof:

https://medicine.umich.edu/dept/microbi ... er-18-2022

Let's see; did you document this stat or did you make it up?

If you consider a 99.3% survival rate among the unvaxed to be "risking death," you must have lived a very, very comfortable life.

The definitive study on unvaccinated mortality was done in 2020, pre vaccine release, and published in the The Lancet. It found the overall death rate for COVID-19 in an unvaccinated population was 0.66% (though even that figure was skewed high due to a sharp increase in mortality in persons over age 80 that inflated the overall averages).

Subsequent studies post-vaccine availability indicate a decreased mortality rate due largely to the diminished potency of Omicron (e.g. British Medical Journal: "risk of covid-19 death with omicron decreased in unvaccinated and vaccinated populations") so my figure is actually probably on the higher end and risk of unvaxed death in 2022 is even lower than 0.7%.

So it goes ... (1) I post a widely known claim, (2) JP4 screams incessantly that I don't have a source to back it up, (3) I post a source to back it up, (4) JP4 goes quiet, (5) I post a widely known claim, (6) JP4 screams incessantly that I don't have a source to back it up, (7) I post a source to back it up, (8) JP4 goes quiet, (9) I post a widely known claim, (10) JP4 screams incessantly that I don't have a source to back it up, (11) I post a source to back it up, (12) JP4 goes quiet, (13) I post a widely known claim, (14) JP4 screams incessantly that ...

[jusplay4fun]

BTW, Note that saxi RARELY supports his allegations with any proof.

The only allegation I've made is that Oveta Fuller is cooling in the ground. Here's proof:

https://medicine.umich.edu/dept/microbi ... er-18-2022

Let's see; did you document this stat or did you make it up?

If you consider a 99.3% survival rate among the unvaxed to be "risking death," you must have lived a very, very comfortable life.

The definitive study on unvaccinated mortality was done in 2020, pre vaccine release, and published in the The Lancet. It found the overall death rate for COVID-19 in an unvaccinated population was 0.66% (though even that figure was skewed high due to a sharp increase in mortality in persons over age 80 that inflated the overall averages).

Subsequent studies post-vaccine availability indicate a decreased mortality rate due largely to the diminished potency of Omicron (e.g. British Medical Journal: "risk of covid-19 death with omicron decreased in unvaccinated and vaccinated populations") so my figure is actually probably on the higher end and risk of unvaxed death in 2022 is even lower than 0.7%.

So it goes ... (1) I post a widely known claim, (2) JP4 screams incessantly that I don't have a source to back it up, (3) I post a source to back it up, (4) JP4 goes quiet, (5) I post a widely known claim, (6) JP4 screams incessantly that I don't have a source to back it up, (7) I post a source to back it up, (8) JP4 goes quiet, (9) I post a widely known claim, (10) JP4 screams incessantly that I don't have a source to back it up, (11) I post a source to back it up, (12) JP4 goes quiet, (13) I post a widely known claim, (14) JP4 screams incessantly that ...

I read your cited article. NOTHING there supports your fake news and fake data, saxi. Do you want to try again? FOR real, and NOT more fake news. You are still trying to peddle fake news on the COVID vaccines,saxi.

[saxitoxin]

BTW, Note that saxi RARELY supports his allegations with any proof.

The only allegation I've made is that Oveta Fuller is cooling in the ground. Here's proof:

https://medicine.umich.edu/dept/microbi ... er-18-2022

Let's see; did you document this stat or did you make it up?

If you consider a 99.3% survival rate among the unvaxed to be "risking death," you must have lived a very, very comfortable life.

The definitive study on unvaccinated mortality was done in 2020, pre vaccine release, and published in the The Lancet. It found the overall death rate for COVID-19 in an unvaccinated population was 0.66% (though even that figure was skewed high due to a sharp increase in mortality in persons over age 80 that inflated the overall averages).

Subsequent studies post-vaccine availability indicate a decreased mortality rate due largely to the diminished potency of Omicron (e.g. British Medical Journal: "risk of covid-19 death with omicron decreased in unvaccinated and vaccinated populations") so my figure is actually probably on the higher end and risk of unvaxed death in 2022 is even lower than 0.7%.

So it goes ... (1) I post a widely known claim, (2) JP4 screams incessantly that I don't have a source to back it up, (3) I post a source to back it up, (4) JP4 goes quiet, (5) I post a widely known claim, (6) JP4 screams incessantly that I don't have a source to back it up, (7) I post a source to back it up, (8) JP4 goes quiet, (9) I post a widely known claim, (10) JP4 screams incessantly that I don't have a source to back it up, (11) I post a source to back it up, (12) JP4 goes quiet, (13) I post a widely known claim, (14) JP4 screams incessantly that ...

I read your cited article. NOTHING there supports your fake news and fake data, saxi. Do you want to try again? FOR real, and NOT more fake news. You are still trying to peddle fake news on the COVID vaccines,saxi.

This is another variation, where he just starts howling the world's most cited medical journal is 'FAKE NEWS!!!" That's why I don't usually bother with this guy.

[bigtoughralf]

tbf ever since the BMJ published the 'vaccines make you autistic' story I think people have quite fairly come to the conclusion that fads like science and research are trendy cosmopolitan nonsense, on a par with low carb diets, wokeism and hot yoga.

That is why regular salt of the earth people like jp reject Establishment pie charts and get their news straight from free thinkers like Russell Brand and PewDiePie.

[jusplay4fun]

BTW, Note that saxi RARELY supports his allegations with any proof.

The only allegation I've made is that Oveta Fuller is cooling in the ground. Here's proof:

https://medicine.umich.edu/dept/microbi ... er-18-2022

Let's see; did you document this stat or did you make it up?

If you consider a 99.3% survival rate among the unvaxed to be "risking death," you must have lived a very, very comfortable life.

The definitive study on unvaccinated mortality was done in 2020, pre vaccine release, and published in the The Lancet. It found the overall death rate for COVID-19 in an unvaccinated population was 0.66% (though even that figure was skewed high due to a sharp increase in mortality in persons over age 80 that inflated the overall averages).

Subsequent studies post-vaccine availability indicate a decreased mortality rate due largely to the diminished potency of Omicron (e.g. British Medical Journal: "risk of covid-19 death with omicron decreased in unvaccinated and vaccinated populations") so my figure is actually probably on the higher end and risk of unvaxed death in 2022 is even lower than 0.7%.

So it goes ... (1) I post a widely known claim, (2) JP4 screams incessantly that I don't have a source to back it up, (3) I post a source to back it up, (4) JP4 goes quiet, (5) I post a widely known claim, (6) JP4 screams incessantly that I don't have a source to back it up, (7) I post a source to back it up, (8) JP4 goes quiet, (9) I post a widely known claim, (10) JP4 screams incessantly that I don't have a source to back it up, (11) I post a source to back it up, (12) JP4 goes quiet, (13) I post a widely known claim, (14) JP4 screams incessantly that ...

I read your cited article. NOTHING there supports your fake news and fake data, saxi. Do you want to try again? FOR real, and NOT more fake news. You are still trying to peddle fake news on the COVID vaccines,saxi.

This is another variation, where he just starts howling the world's most cited medical journal is 'FAKE NEWS!!!" That's why I don't usually bother with this guy.

saxi does not bother with me because I call him out on his LIES. saxi cannot refute my logic, sources, or arguments.

I do not need to say every post that saxi makes on many topics, especially here, is a LIE. Most who read things in this Forum understand that; there is no need to beat a dead horse.

Again, here is more obfuscation by saxi. I did not call the Journal fake news. Instead, I call his attempt to cite that Journal as SUPPORT of his point (which it does NOT) as fake news. There is a BIG difference; saxi missed it.

Instead, saxi focuses on big dicks, like ralph, instead. I did not say that ralph has a big dick (of which I have no personal knowledge); I said that ralph IS a big dick. Again, a BIG difference. Do not be confused by obfuscation.

[saxitoxin]

saxi does not bother with me because I call him out on his LIES. saxi cannot refute my logic, sources, or arguments.

I do not need to say every post that saxi makes on many topics, especially here, is a LIE. Most who read things in this Forum understand that; there is no need to beat a dead horse.

Again, here is more obfuscation by saxi. I did not call the Journal fake news. Instead, I call his attempt to cite that Journal as SUPPORT of his point (which it does NOT) as fake news. There is a BIG difference; saxi missed it.

Instead, saxi focuses on big dicks, like ralph, instead. I did not say that ralph has a big dick (of which I have no personal knowledge); I said that ralph IS a big dick. Again, a BIG difference. Do not be confused by obfuscation.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you really are too dumb to understand what The Lancet is saying, and aren't just howling for show.

#1
Here's a summary of The Lancet article from the British Medical Journal [https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1327]. Again, this was published before the availability of vaccines.



#2
Here is the statement I made which you were demanding IN ALL CAPS I prove:

... a 99.3% survival rate among the unvaxed ...

#3
Here is basic arithmetic:

100-0.66=99.34, rounded to the tenths as 99.3

I'm honestly surprised you're able to even turn on your computer to read any of this. I mean at this point I imagine you're catatonic with a feeding tube. No one is this dumb.

[jusplay4fun]

saxi does not bother with me because I call him out on his LIES. saxi cannot refute my logic, sources, or arguments.

I do not need to say every post that saxi makes on many topics, especially here, is a LIE. Most who read things in this Forum understand that; there is no need to beat a dead horse.

Again, here is more obfuscation by saxi. I did not call the Journal fake news. Instead, I call his attempt to cite that Journal as SUPPORT of his point (which it does NOT) as fake news. There is a BIG difference; saxi missed it.

Instead, saxi focuses on big dicks, like ralph, instead. I did not say that ralph has a big dick (of which I have no personal knowledge); I said that ralph IS a big dick. Again, a BIG difference. Do not be confused by obfuscation.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you really are too dumb to understand what The Lancet is saying, and aren't just howling for show.

#1
Here's a summary of The Lancet article from the British Medical Journal [https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1327]. Again, this was published before the availability of vaccines.



#2
Here is the statement I made which you were demanding IN ALL CAPS I prove:

... a 99.3% survival rate among the unvaxed ...

#3
Here is basic arithmetic:

100-0.66=99.34, rounded to the tenths as 99.3

I'm honestly surprised you're able to even turn on your computer to read any of this. I mean at this point I imagine you're catatonic with a feeding tube. No one is this dumb.

Typical saxi: he uses obfuscation. The quote is from an article in April 2020, when we were still trying to figure this out. This data and stat is about cases in Mainland China, NOT in the UK or USA. Note also the relatively small sample size. Basically this date is irrelevant and thus misleading.

In other words, saxi lies again. NO surprise.

saxi's summary is totally made up, using BJM letterhead and then cherry-picking one small selected quote which saxi TRIES to use to justify his FAKE stat. The summary is not from the BJM, but constructed by saxi in an attempt to support his LIE.
Another Lie by saxi; # 109. And I made up that #, it is at least 15, but I will not bother to look up the # I have actually documented already. It is in the range of 13-17, AT a minimum.

Let's look at the actual quote, from his linked source:

(Published 01 April 2020)

The overall death rate from covid-19 has been estimated at 0.66%, rising sharply to 7.8% in people aged over 80 and declining to 0.0016% in children aged 9 and under.1

The estimates, calculated by researchers in the UK, used aggregate data on cases and deaths in mainland China. Unlike other estimates, however, they adjusted for undiagnosed cases and the number of people in each age group of a population.

The team found that nearly one in five people over 80 infected with covid-19 would probably require hospital admission, compared with around 1% of people under 30.

They also estimated that the average time between a person displaying symptoms and dying was 17.8 days, while recovering from the disease was estimated to take slightly longer, with patients being discharged from hospital after an average of 22.6 days.

The paper, published in the Lancet Infectious Diseases and funded by the UK Medical Research Council, analysed data from 3665 covid-19 cases in mainland China to estimate the admission rate among different age groups.

https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1327

Also, his initially linked article from BJM did not say what he wanted; it is merely more misleading information.

[2dimes]

One must wonder how often Saxi has been interrupted by Linda Searcy, while gazing at the purple forbidden enclosure?

[saxitoxin]

saxi does not bother with me because I call him out on his LIES. saxi cannot refute my logic, sources, or arguments.

I do not need to say every post that saxi makes on many topics, especially here, is a LIE. Most who read things in this Forum understand that; there is no need to beat a dead horse.

Again, here is more obfuscation by saxi. I did not call the Journal fake news. Instead, I call his attempt to cite that Journal as SUPPORT of his point (which it does NOT) as fake news. There is a BIG difference; saxi missed it.

Instead, saxi focuses on big dicks, like ralph, instead. I did not say that ralph has a big dick (of which I have no personal knowledge); I said that ralph IS a big dick. Again, a BIG difference. Do not be confused by obfuscation.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you really are too dumb to understand what The Lancet is saying, and aren't just howling for show.

#1
Here's a summary of The Lancet article from the British Medical Journal [https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1327]. Again, this was published before the availability of vaccines.



#2
Here is the statement I made which you were demanding IN ALL CAPS I prove:

... a 99.3% survival rate among the unvaxed ...

#3
Here is basic arithmetic:

100-0.66=99.34, rounded to the tenths as 99.3

I'm honestly surprised you're able to even turn on your computer to read any of this. I mean at this point I imagine you're catatonic with a feeding tube. No one is this dumb.

Typical saxi: he uses obfuscation. The quote is from an article in April 2020, when we were still trying to figure this out. This data and stat is about cases in Mainland China, NOT in the UK or USA. Note also the relatively small sample size. Basically this date is irrelevant and thus misleading.

In other words, saxi lies again. NO surprise.

saxi's summary is totally made up, using BJM letterhead and then cherry-picking one small selected quote which saxi TRIES to use to justify his FAKE stat. The summary is not from the BJM, but constructed by saxi in an attempt to support his LIE.
Another Lie by saxi; # 109. And I made up that #, it is at least 15, but I will not bother to look up the # I have actually documented already. It is in the range of 13-17, AT a minimum.

Let's look at the actual quote, from his linked source:

(Published 01 April 2020)

The overall death rate from covid-19 has been estimated at 0.66%, rising sharply to 7.8% in people aged over 80 and declining to 0.0016% in children aged 9 and under.1

The estimates, calculated by researchers in the UK, used aggregate data on cases and deaths in mainland China. Unlike other estimates, however, they adjusted for undiagnosed cases and the number of people in each age group of a population.

The team found that nearly one in five people over 80 infected with covid-19 would probably require hospital admission, compared with around 1% of people under 30.

They also estimated that the average time between a person displaying symptoms and dying was 17.8 days, while recovering from the disease was estimated to take slightly longer, with patients being discharged from hospital after an average of 22.6 days.

The paper, published in the Lancet Infectious Diseases and funded by the UK Medical Research Council, analysed data from 3665 covid-19 cases in mainland China to estimate the admission rate among different age groups.

https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1327

Also, his initially linked article from BJM did not say what he wanted; it is merely more misleading information.

tl;dr version - Asians are somehow more likely to survive COVID than non Asians so, despite the fact that literally all of science accepts this data, jp4 will not. (FYI jp4 - any sample set larger than 450 is statistically acceptable for non age adjusted data and 3,665 is larger than Pfizer's last trial group.)

Bless your empty little head, jp4.

[bigtoughralf]

ralph has a big dick

All roads lead to Rome and all threads lead to one of either jp or saxi thinking about my genitals.

[jusplay4fun]

ralph has a big dick

All roads lead to Rome and all threads lead to one of either jp or saxi thinking about my genitals.

saxi is teaching his PAL ralph well on obfuscation. Here is the ACTUAL quote:

I did not say that ralph has a big dick (of which I have no personal knowledge); I said that ralph IS a big dick. Again, a BIG difference. Do not be confused by obfuscation.

This is more wishful thinking by ralph, apparently, since he had to be SO MISLEADING.

[jusplay4fun]

Rather than rely on saxi's weak math and his non-Science interpretation of events, let's answer it with Science.

6,638,486 people have died so far from the coronavirus COVID-19 outbreak as of November 30, 2022, 01:21 GMT.

There are currently 646,875,944 confirmed cases in 228 countries and territories .

OVER 6.6 million deaths is SIGNIFICANT, no matter what saxi says. Further:

Infection Fatality Rate (23k / 1.7M = 1.4% IFR)
Actual Cases with an outcome as of May 1 = estimated actual recovered (1,671,351) + estimated actual deaths (23,430) = 1,694,781.

Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) = Deaths / Cases = 23,430 / 1,694,781 = 1.4% (1.4% of people infected with SARS-CoV-2 have a fatal outcome, while 98.6% recover).

so the death rate is more than TWICE what saxi alleged. His math and his reasoning are OFF.

I wonder how much digging saxi did to find that obscure bit of data, to try to justify his ALLEGED and likely FAKE #. My search took about 3 minutes.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-death-toll/

[saxitoxin]

Rather than rely on saxi's weak math and his non-Science interpretation of events, let's answer it with Science.

6,638,486 people have died so far from the coronavirus COVID-19 outbreak as of November 30, 2022, 01:21 GMT.

There are currently 646,875,944 confirmed cases in 228 countries and territories .

OVER 6.6 million deaths is SIGNIFICANT, no matter what saxi says. Further:

Infection Fatality Rate (23k / 1.7M = 1.4% IFR)
Actual Cases with an outcome as of May 1 = estimated actual recovered (1,671,351) + estimated actual deaths (23,430) = 1,694,781.

Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) = Deaths / Cases = 23,430 / 1,694,781 = 1.4% (1.4% of people infected with SARS-CoV-2 have a fatal outcome, while 98.6% recover).

so the death rate is more than TWICE what saxi alleged. His math and his reasoning are OFF.

I wonder how much digging saxi did to find that obscure bit of data, to try to justify his ALLEGED and likely FAKE #. My search took about 3 minutes.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-death-toll/

You got me. Who is The Lancet to argue with "worldometers.info"?