The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
when you look at people above the age of 75 that represents the remainder of deaths which is about forty five and a half percent and again to our best estimate somewhere between point three and point six percent of those people have no pre-existing condition
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
virtually none of these people are free of pre-existing conditions in fact it's 0.3 percent regardless of how you look at the data
that's twenty four point five percent of the deaths but now the percentage of those people who have no underlying medical condition drops and the bracket here goes somewhere between about three point four and four point three percent
five point eight percent of the deaths are in people that are eighteen to forty five and about 10 percent of those people have no underlying medical conditions