If it really is "Science" ...

They've flip-flopped half a dozen times on this.

Cholesterol is good, but too much or too little of either type is bad.

In any event, I don't think 1-2 jumbo/extra large eggs for breakfast a day are going to kill me. :)

Actually, if this eggs are organic they have 25% less saturated fat.

Dr. Robert Malone

Yep . . . these leftist authoritarians made an error when they insisted upon ramming STEM programming down the throats of students in both public and private school systems. Right or Left . . . EVERYONE . . . is forced to understand the fundamentals of science and its principles and so this crapola about everyone needing multiple vaccine injections for an infection with a 98% recovery rate when even the CDC admitted that you are probably going to end up getting infected ANYWAY by one of the variations rams straight into the wall call common sense . . . or at least it does with genuinely independent thinkers . . . excluding lockstep minded leftist sheeple whom are programmed to . . . obey their elites.

If it’s in a format you can understand, it’s probably not science. 😂

Upvote! https://imgflip.com/gif/5zsjuv

Followed by a whole bunch of dead people.

Enjoy your propaganda.

Here is the data; clear and unequivocal, available online, and in a format we can all understand:

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#cases_casesper100klast7days

If you don’t understand it, then I’m happy to help you with it.

If you don’t find it unequivocal, then please present your counter data.

If you have counter data, then why do you want data that is clear and unequivocal if you already have it?

"If you don’t understand it, then I’m happy to help you with it."
so very kind of you, and so arrogant
your parents would be proud

I didn't say I had different data, much less better data.
My point is that the science is not settled. If it were, they
wouldn't be changing their minds every couple of weeks,
about what should be done.

Frankly, I cannot believe that you really believe the science is
settled on Covid. It would be naive to believe that you can believe
the numbers we are being given on Covid cases. It is not the only
example. They told you that Biden only left one or two hundred
Americans behind in Afghanistan to be butchered by the Taliban.
Not to mention the tens of thousand of our allies, to whom this
country pledged its support. And then there is the truth about
what is going on at the southern border. Do you really believe
that they give you crap numbers on everything but Covid
If I may, I will simplify it for you

“so very kind of you, and so arrogant your parents would be proud”

Kindness is rarely arrogance.

“My point is that the science is not settled. If it were, they wouldn't be changing their minds every couple of weeks, about what should be done.”

You’re right the science is not settled. It rarely is with new things like viruses and ongoing pandemics. However, the data is available and the changing of minds is consistent with the data.

“Frankly, I cannot believe that you really believe the science is settled on Covid.”

Much as you claim to not have data, I have not made any claim that the science is settled. It has certainly be proven. It can be unproven only with data which is being collected and has been provided to you.

“It would be naive to believe that you can believe
the numbers we are being given on Covid cases.”

If you have no evidence to validate your reasonable skepticism then your skepticism is not reasonable. You’re just arguing with facts.

“ They told you that Biden only left one or two hundred Americans…”

Who is they? What does that have to do with the presented data?

It just sounds like you are frustrated. You’d be less frustrated if you read the data. It is there but your doubt has nothing to do with politics or governments. It has to do with your need to believe that there is something nefarious afoot to validate your general unhappiness with people, the country, or your personal problems.

An intelligent person, even one who is incredibly skeptical or mistrustful would at least read the data. If you want to poke holes in the facts you have to start by actually reading them. If you have a problem with reading then you are just being immature and stubborn as a child would behave. And as I am not your parent, I cannot help you with that nor would I say your parents would be proud.

"Here is the data; clear and unequivocal, available online, and in a format we can all understand"

"the" data
Seriously, you think you have found ALL the data and ALL of it is irrefutable ?
Sounds delusional

If I had found ALL the data and that it was irrefutable then why would I then ask for anything that counters the data?

I also said that if you want to poke holes in the facts you have to start by actually reading them. Facts can only be disproven with more facts. More data. If you have more data, then by all means, share it. Not to mention that I have said this all the data we have now. And that it has changed every day since knowing about this virus. Because that is how data works. After a larger collection is observed and understood then things can be proven or disproven but first it must be observed. However, given your frustration that the data is not easily consumable, it is very reasonable for me to conclude that you've been ignoring the data.

That is ignorance and, as you can quite see, it is rarely blissful much as kindness is rarely arrogance.

I'm not attacking you yet you perceive my helpfulness as an attack. This is a result of a mind that has not only been conditioned to believe anything being told to you is a lie but potentially one on the brink of breaking that conditioning because it is no longer accepting what you are being told by the ones who conditioned you. I think you're at the cusp of that personal discovery and I just want you to know that it's going to be okay.

You can keep attacking me all you want. Attacking everyone you don't believe is all you have now because that is all you can do until you finally discover the truth.

not attacking you - just kindly pointing out that you are wrong to believe the science is irrefutable. You just can't accept reality

Do you get points for verbosity on these threads?

But I don't believe science is irrefutable.

It would hardly be science. Science is all about proving or disproving existing knowledge. Data is merely observed knowledge. If the data changes then what is known changes.

No, you don't but if I were here for points then I wouldn't waste my time with comments.

I'm here purely for the social interaction because while there is a lot I may agree with those who dominate the politics stream, there are very large issues I do not. I find this contradiction most fascinating and I suspect a closed social environment, is why so many people engage in such irascibly rousing discussion surrounding politics.

Because their friends, or people whom they use to call friends were more liberal than they are. Perhaps even moderates but still too liberal for their liking. And the surrounding people are likewise not of the same mind, so they turn to social media to fulfill that political confirmation bias that they have and that confirmation bias has now infected their factual understanding of reality to the point that they're even at odds with basic science.

This is not purely a conservative problem. It is also a liberal one. It affects all Americans, I think, and the only way to fix it is by talking to people. Not just people we agree with or are like-minded but people we disagree. AND it's important to do that with as much civility and politeness as one can offer.

However, I'm only human and I can be emotional too. Heck, I suspect my more emotional posts are far more enjoyable than anything you've read here. But, I find reasonable comments to have a more profound long term investment. Even if they are destined to be downvoted into oblivion.

"Kindness is rarely arrogance."
Yet somehow you managed it, and blissful ignorance

Do you have evidence to support that the numbers were made up as you so claim?

You know, me being a hardcore propagandist, I wouldn't ask for such a thing because my data, to me, would be so infallible that I could not possibly say such a thing exists.

But...given how I did ask... that seems to refute your theory about me being a hardcore propagandist.

And lastly, and most importantly...

Facts are not propaganda.

Here, you actually got it mostly right on the percentage of the population that has been infected.

289, 818, 031 million infected ÷ 7 billion population = 0.0414025758571429 x 100 = 4.14%. Sure you rounded it up to 5% but it explains that I am correct of your assessment of your error.

Again:

5.4 million dead ÷ 7 billion population is 0.000771428571 x 100 = 0.077142861%.

Not 0.00077142861%.

Decimal percentages are used in finance every. Single. Day. Why are you even arguing? It's math that actually has a factual correct answer?

I know right!? 🤪😅😜

Lefties have a hard time with facts, much less topics that have an exact answer like mathematics

He just disagreed that 99.923 isn't the surviving percentage of our population.... After arguing 0.077% is our death toll... You cant make this stuff up!

Right?

For the full context, he's saying people who are being hospitalized with covid count as surviving. As of right now only 87.3% have fully recovered. So it's closer to 99.398% of the total population rather than 99.923%.

Of course, LetsGo_Elect_Brandon_JR didn't even read my rebuttal.

Further, I'm not a leftist.

Just an expect.

Which it appears Trump Supporters and some of my fellow conservatives just hate for no reason.

More the other way, honestly. Only one of us knows statistics and when to admit we're wrong.

The other seems to only double down and make excuses for their errors.

I'm glad you like my memes tho

He didn't say 0.0077 though. He used 0.0077%.

No, just wrong without the percentage modifier.

Nobody uses just decimals to represent a portioned value.

We calculate to find the percentage.

Which is what you tried to do in your meme, and were caught being wrong.

Not the same thing.

They are the same thing. 0.00077 as a decimal is the same thing a 0.077%

No. 0.077% in decimal value is 0.00077, but it is not a percentage.

They are the same NUMBERS represented in two formats. Decimalistically and percentagedly.

Correct but 0.00077 is not a percentage and was the number you used to represent the pecentage.

When you refer to 1.00 as a total 100% it does

Except you didn't in your original statements so you were wrong in the above photos.

Only person here who hasn't understood my meme is you. Which means you're hard up to be right - prolly because a parent always told you how wrong you were.

I'm guessing your chores output didn't match your parents expectations.

I'm sorry, I shouldn't be weighing in on your argument. It's just got so much opportunity for memes and is completely hilarious. But I'll butt out now . . . laughing the whole time. . .

No, actually. My parents were also mathematicians. If I was wrong they pretty much got onto me much as I have you.

I understand your meme is wrong. If I'm the only one who does, that doesn't make your meme any more accurate.

Yes they do. Go pay for gas at the pump. It will have a little 9 after the cents, to represent 9/10th of a penny. 3.299 -- the little 9 at the end is a decimal, to represent a portioned value. That portioned value is 90% of a penny.

You're right, I'm wrong. People do use decimals to represent a portioned value.

Then I alter my statement and will say this: Nobody uses decimal value when finding the percentage.

You were trying to find the percentage therefor you were wrong.

In most sales transactions we use decimals to represent the exact amount exchanged.

0.00077 is not the exact amount in this equation but rather 5.4 million is a closer representation of the exact amount. So, to make 5.4 million smaller we'd use a percentage.

Which is still 0.077%

Which gumshoe won't do. Gumshoe works for the narrative drivers and will push that narrative to the bone.

Which as a decimal is 0.00077 - globally speaking 99.923% of life is AOK.

To put it in perspective, imagine if a baseball team won 99.923% of their games. They would have only lost like 2 games on the season. Everyone would talk about the greatness of that team for a century potentially.

But we aren't talking greatness are we? We are talking doom and gloom over something that has literally taken less than a percent of our population.

I'm an optimistic person by nature and that's pretty darn good numbers - that don't fit the narrative.

0.077% is a decimal too. It's also a percentage value and what you meant to write.

99.923% is also wrong. Because I wanted you to learn how percentages work so you would understand my point. Which I haven't even begun. :D

That dreaded look in your eye.

Now, while 0.077% have died (so far), more are still dying so 0.077% isn't fixed. In fact, I believe it's already moved to 0.078% for the length of time we've been arguing. Which would be funny if so many people weren't dead.

But, I could be wrong, of course so we'll continue to use 0.077% for now. Now, 0.077% is the number who are dead but 0.525% represents the number who are sick and have yet to recover (this number is a bit more fixed than the percentage of infected/dead because it is a wide window. Now, again.. half a percent of the population still being in limbo might not be a lot to you but it's still 36.8 million sick trying to recover from the virus.

Which means if we add 0.525% to 0.077% we get 0.602%. Now we can find the percent of the population that is supposedly AOK.

0.602% - 100% = 99.398%.

Meaning, 99.398% of the total population are not still sick nor infected. Now, it's not a scary number now is it?

Well, lets try to make it even less scary... 4.16% of the population has caught covid.

Oh, sorry, did I say I was making it less scary? Well, 4.17% while it spills over into that 100% value, is still relatively small. Just not small compared to the rest of the numbers you might say. However, we don't know the long term effects of covid. You might say the same thing about the vaccines, sure, but we have even less understanding of what long term effects covid might have than what we do understand of the long term effects of the vaccine.

You might even say well, okay 95.83% are definitely okay.

Yes, but of that 4.17%, 1.87% have died. If 4.17% of the population who've had covid grows to 41.70%, and the fatality rate holds at 1.87%, we're now looking at 54.6 million dead. Which is 0.77% of the total population.

I put it to you, what do you think is an acceptable loss?

Actually 0.077% plus 99.923% actually does equal 100%. What math do you even teach?

Whoville math?

I recommend you read the whole comment.

Actually 0.077% plus 0.525% equals 0.602%. 100% - 0.602% = 99.398%.

99.398% is a more accurate representation of your assessment.

Your original answer was not just mathematically wrong but contextually wrong.

You can't just assume because people are not dead they are AOK. There are other pools of data such as infected, recovered, and dead. Not just dead. 0.525% is the number who have yet to recover. I wouldn't classify them as AOK.

Wee are talking active death count..
So all of your speculation is moot. I win again.

Not really. The death count being active means it will grow, not shrink. Which means these percentages are only foundations for future larger percentages.

But you are right, it is meaningless if you think these are all small and acceptable numbers.

They aren't.

You're using Ifs... I'm using actual data lmao.

No, I'm using data.

7 billion = population

291,753,733 = infected with covid

5,463,762 = deaths from covid

254,988,027 = recovered from covid

36,765,706 = still infected with covid

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

Percentages:

100% = population

4.16% = infected with covid

0.077% = deaths from covid

3.64% = recovered from covid

0.525% = still infected with covid

What is unknown is if the fatality rate will hold (, lower, or decrease)

How long it will take for covid to spread beyond 4.16% of the population.

The long term effects of covid

All of my calculations have been reasonable and consistent. Now, will these numbers hold? Certainly not the infected, the deaths, and the still infected. No, these will grow. Even the population will grow. In fact, we've been using a very simple population total when it's closer to 7.75... which means some of these percentages are even smaller.

Just not the actual numbers.

I'm using science of math to come to my bias that's it's all a BS ploy...

That would require more evidence than simply math.

You would need to find a money trail for a real smoking gun.

Something that would most definitely be of use with a decimal value.

Nah - I do win again. Because when looking at numbers for how bad something is - you have to consider all of the numbers. When compared to world population - isn't all that much.

With 291 Million cases (with roughly 4 percent of them being 1 person catching it twice). We can say that roughly 1 in every 24 to 25 people have caught COVID. Or 100 of every 2400 to 2500.

We know that 98% have survived so far without dying. So 2 out of 2400 people will catch it and die from COVID. Or 1/1200 people (thus far) have caught it and died from it.

That's not pandemic levels. That's barely anyone catching it and dying from it.

But you haven't consider all of the numbers.

You assume that because people who aren't currently dead are going to be AOK.

The world population is not yet relevant because only 4.6% have had it. If the pandemic is allowed to continue that number will grow and if the fatality rate holds, it will also be just as important to monitor that as it would be the general population.

Again, these numbers, though small to you, are still growing. They were even smaller in 2020. Now, they're 5.6 million times greater than they were. How much greater will they be next year or the year after that?

These are most certainly pandemic levels. They're not flu numbers. Now I have to teach you definitions:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pandemic

: occurring over a wide geographic area (such as multiple countries or continents) and typically affecting a significant proportion of the population

The key word, I suspect we disagree with is a significant portion. That would be when it hits 1%. The fatality rate, even in it's early days, exceeded 1%. The percentage of the world population that got it was 1%... therefor it is most certainly a pandemic.

While a pandemic doesn't seem as bad in a world full of 7 billion, in a world just 100 years ago when we only had 2 billion, these numbers might've had a greater value.

https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/world-population-by-year/

Arguably they still do.

Potentially, if the total population becomes infected (extremely unlikely) the worse case scenario is 126 million dead. We've already reached 4.2% of that worst case event.

But again, maybe to you 1.8% of the entire world population is an acceptable loss.

I never brought infected rate into the equation. You did to try and sound intelligent on the subject.

4.6 percent infected. Of those 291 Million - only 5.4 million have died so far.

1% of 291Million is 2.91 Million. 5.4 million is less than 2% of the infected that have died from it or a variant.

So 95.4% of the population hasn't gotten it. Of the 4.6% that has, literally less than 2% died. So survivability of the virus when you catch it right now is 98.something % survivable. By cases so far - you have a 95.4 chance of not even having it.

Which again speaks to it not being as bad as the MSM and you are trying to portray.

But now you're using ifs...

You can only count the recovered in the survivability which would mean 87.40% }{(recovered/total infected)x100}have survived and recovered.

You would not tell a patient in a hospital bed hacking their lungs out that they are part of the survival of covid. But perhaps you would. If you wish to, even while they're on deaths door, I suppose you could argue they're technically alive and therefor have survived but will they survive? You don't know.

Of course, you could also add the total population, including the portion that hasn't even had it yet and say 99.4% have survived. But chances are that number is just not going to hold.

That glass half full doesn't work when someone is still sipping through a straw of that observed glass.

No it doesn't require more data than what's there like a money trail.... the news and social media have everyone at threat level 10 and have a population scared to visit their families during holidays. The numbers don't support the level of fear being induced. That's all you need is common sense.... Oh wait. I see the problem now.

(See that's an insult)

But since you've pointed out a money trail..

Fauci authorized Gain of Function research, has money in various medical companies as investments. What companies made a shit ton of money on this event?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamandrzejewski/2021/10/20/dr-anthony-faucis-little-known-biodefense-work--its-how-he-became-the-highest-paid-federal-employee/?sh=c1f539608166

Big Pharma and Big Transportation were the highest yielding sets of business. With Fauci out earning the President - to , now get this... To prevent pandemics.

He was given high pay raises to prevent pandemics - then authorized funding for gain of function research that made covid more transferrable and more deadly....

He literally helped orchestrate the pandemic and was paid more to do it. Thanks - I forgot about the money trail.

I'm fine with your insults. I'm sorry you can't communicate without the use of them due to your own personal frustrations.

It is not enough that companies profit. There is going to have to be more. Sorry. Companies profiting on things they make is not in and of itself a money trail.

I'm okay with investigations into Fauci, however.

That's fair lmao. I'm proud to have confirmation bias that 99.923% of our population hasn't died. I'm proud to recognize all of the efforts people have taken to keep it under control.

Things like not giving a damn about vaccines. Things like giving a damn about vaccines. Things like IverMectin being used around the world as well as vaccines. Things like immune systems working as designed and kicking COVID out the door.

Confirmation bias isn't something to be proud of if you are questioning the science.

In science, confirmation bias is the tendency to interpret new evidence as confirmation of one's existing beliefs or theories; regardless of the data and facts presented.

This willful ignorance allows you to believe whatever you want even if it isn't what the science reflects.

Survivability is found by taking total cases and checking out the total deaths at the point it is observed.

Responding to available data is using the data that is available now. With what is available now - I'm right. Depending on how many people are born and how many cases are still pending 98 percent of those people surviving.... We could potentially be even better off.

But I'm referring to what's on paper now - which is my numbers and you can't disprove any of it. Except to point out percentage stuff, which is explained by my representing 1.00 as 100 percent, not 100.00 .

You only have Ifs and Buts.

We have the data of people who have recovered.

Nope -i expect 98% of the people who haven't got over it... To survive, like the current data suggests. Or I'll use an If here... If omicron and Delta are as flaccid as they have shown to be... That might be 98.5%

All you have is ifs and buts.

Try reading what I wrote.

We have 77 percent of 1/1000th.

That is 0.00077, not 0.077 you're scare mongering

77% of what 1/1000th?

77% would be (by your determination) 0.77 multiplied by 7 billion which would be 5.4 billion.

I'm not sure why you're dividing by 1000 when the relevant numbers are

5.4 million and 7 billion.

If 0.01 is 1% to you...

Then 0.00077 is 0.077%.

You're missing a zero. 1/1000th is 7 million. 1/1000th is represented by 0.001 .77 percent of that is the 5.4 million. 77 percent of 0.001 is 0.00077 - how hard is this to understand ?

1/1000 = 0.001 (not 7 million. 1 error.)
1/1000 = 0.001 (correct)
0.77/100 = 0.0077
0.77% of 0001 = 0.0000077 (not 5.4 million)
0.77 x 0.001 = 0.00077 (correct.)

The problem with your steps is you start with a simplicity but by the middle you fail to connect 5.4 million to 7 billion

I'll do it again.

5,400,000/7,000,000,000 = 0.000771428571 (correct.)
0.000771428571x100 = 0.0771428571 (correct.)
0.077% of 7 billion = 5.4 million. (correct)

When 1/1000 is the amount of population ...yes. it does.

1/1000 = 0.001 (7 Billion people - 1/1000th most certainly is 7 Million).

So when 5.4 million have died... Seventy seven percent of 1/1000th have died. You're epic levels stupid dude

Ah, finally I understand your error.
Instead of typing 1/1000 = 7 million, I understand the 1 to be 7 billion.

7,000,000,000 / 1000 = 7,000,000 (correct)
77% of 7,000,000 = 5,390,000 (correct)

But, you did not need to divide by 1000 unless the smaller number was easier for you to calculate. As a result, you now would have to divide the percentage, 77% of 7 million to find the percentage of 7 billion. Which, yes, now would no longer need the modifier since 77% is already a percentage. 77% / 1000 = 0.077%

Which is what I've been saying all along.

Right. You're using a 1.00 equals 1 percent. Where as I am saying my 1.00 is equivalent to 1 population (of roughly 7 Billion).

We are saying the same thing - with different terms.

I'm using a decimal to show how much it represents of 1 population (of approximately 7 Billion).

I've never said 1.00. I've said "1%", "1.00%" not "1.00". YOU are using decimals without a percentage, yes. And sometimes erroneously said "0.0007 percent" Yes, you can convert a 0.077% into decimal form of 0.00077, but you've consistently applied the percent value every time and attributed by two zeroes off without applying the percentage modifier.

If you understood we were saying the same thing with different terms, you wouldn't have continued to say I was wrong every time.

I tried to explain the difference between a percentage value and your incomplete decimal value.

Now you're just going to pretend you were always right but you weren't.

If you want to use the percentage, it's very simple... from this point on... use the percentage modifier as I've shown you multiple times in this thread. If you don't, I'll just continue correcting you.

I think we've been here before and you've made this excuse which is why I'm so zealous.

I don't want to be here 6 months later correcting you again.

Please learn from your mistakes.

Nah. I'm using 1.00 to represent a total population - and 0.00077 is the appropriate decimal to represent that.

Or 77% of 1/1000th of that 7,000,000,000 people.

77% of 1/1000 of 7 billion people would be 0.077%.

You're so hard up for being right you can't see you're wrong here - even your image provided doesnt represent what I've said

Well, I’m trying to understand where you’re wrong.

I’ve already done the numbers, showed my work, explained my work, and yet your way still produces the wrong answer.

I’ve even provided an online instruction that supports my formula to find the answer.

0.01 is 1% but you are confusing 1% as 0.01%. And this error is mostly been consistent with your answers. Which means you are in error.

Ironically, you did do it right when you were finding the percentage of the population have been infected. You originally said 5%.

Run your formula again to find the number of infected and tell me what your answer is.

289,818,031 million infected of 7 billion.

If you’re consistent, your answer should be:

0.0414

Which if you’d just multiply the percentage modifier you would get 4.14% which is closer to your original answer than simply 0.0414.

Seriously, check your math and run it against the actual numbers.

I don’t have to be right, my figures just aren’t adding up to whatever it is you’re doing which leads me to the reasonable conclusion that you’re wrong.

It’s nothing personal. Here are more links that I urge you to read that help find percentages since you’re just refusing to an expert who makes a living doing figures.

https://www.cuemath.com/commercial-math/percentages/

https://sciencing.com/easy-ways-calculate-percentages-8362422.html

https://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/math/percentage.php

This last one even calculated 0.077% of 7 billion and shows you the answer is 5.4 million.

Your numbers are a little off.

You have to multiply by 100 in order to get the percentage. It would be 0.0771428571% of the total population.

However, that is far from it's fatality rate, but rather you divide not by total population, as more of the population can still catch it in an ongoing pandemic. That would mean it's fatality rate is still 1.8% of the total infected. And could reach as high as 146,030,119 million people.

Now, maybe to you 5.4 million or 146 million is an acceptable loss but to anyone who understands the value of life, it's quite terrifying.

Or would be... given our resources and ingenuity, these numbers are completely avoidable.

Yet some willfully remain ignorant and skeptical of this.

7Bill/100 is 70 Million. That's 0.01 or 1 percent. You're representing 0.077etc. we have not lost nearly 490 million + to covid. We have lost 5.4 million.

5.4 Million is way less than 70 Million. 10 percent of 70 Million is 7 million. To the original 7 Billion, that looks like 0.001 we haven't lost 7 Million. We've lost 5.4 Million. Which looks like 0.00077 like I posted.

Math doesn't lie.

I never said we lost 490 million + to covid.

True math doesn't lie, but your math is off due to your own personal error. It's not math's fault you're wrong.

In order to gain the percentage, you have to modify the decimal value by 100.

It is not 0.01 or 1%. It is simply 1%.

We've lost 5.4 million which is 0.077% of 7 billion.

Checking my math: 5.4 million ÷ 7 billion is 0.000771428571 ( or 7.714285714285714e-4 on some calculators), but to add the percentage we need to modify it by multiplying that number by 100. Which would now make it 0.077142861%.

Another way to put it with a smaller number for you is 70 million ÷ 7 billion (or 7 ÷ 700) equals 0.01. But, as you've so correctly deduced 70 million is 1% of 7 billion. 0.01% or 1%? Which one is correct? Same goes for 0.000771428571% or 0.077142861%. If you multiply 0.01 by 100, then you get 1%. If you multiply your numerical error of 0.000771428571 by 100 you get 0.077142861%

Here, I'll post how to get percentages of numbers in a basic math tutorial I found online if you're still having trouble.

https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/career-development/how-to-calculate-percentage

Math doesn't lie, indeed.

You're not the only one to make this error, by the way. A lot of people on Politics apparently can't do math. I'm happy to be their teacher though. :)

And hey, if you do find any mistakes in my math, by all means... let me know. These basic thinking skills are important for anyone to grow as a person. No matter how old they may be.

"Math is racist" What a load of rubbish. If anything, it transcends language and is universal.

I'm not making an error here... I'm presenting decimals and speaking percent and using the appropriate decimal to represent the percent. To accurately show how much of our population died from covid.

So, what percentage of the population has died again?

Well if 1/100 or 0.01 equals 70 Million. We have 5.4 million dead... 7 Million is 1/1000 of our population.

.77/1000 percent have died or 0.00077

Further incorrect. 0.01% does not equal 70 million.

1 DIVIDED by 100 equals 0.01, yes... but 1% of 100, is 1. Not 0.01%.

100% = 7 billion
10% = 700 million
1% = 70 million
0.100% = 7 million
0.086% = 6 million
0.077% = 5.4million

100 / 1 is 1. Which is 1 percent. Which is numerically represented by 0.01

No. Almost.

100/1 is 0.01.
Or 100(DIVIDED by) 1 = 0.01.

1% of 100 is 1.

1 of 100 is 1%.

If you multiply a whole number by 0.01 you will find the 1%, sure but that doesn't mean 0.01 is and of itself 1%.

Incorrect. It would be 0.0771428571%.

Once more 5.4 million have died and if the total population is 7 billion then, you would divide the death by population to get the overall percentage of the population's fatality SO FAR.

5.4 million ÷ 7 billion is 0.000771428571 ( or 7.714285714285714e-4 on some calculators), but to add the percentage we need to modify it by multiplying that number by 100.

Which would make it 0.077142861%.

No we don't. 0.01 is the same as saying 1 percent. I just shouldn't have added the phrase percent to it?

No, you are looking for the percentage value so you would multiply 0.01 by 100 to get 1%.

0.01 is not the same thing as saying 1%. Yes, it is mathematically relevant to finding 1% but it is not in and of itself the percentage. And yes, adding a % by the incomplete determining value is incorrect.

I'm not saying 0.01 can't be a percentage it is just not the same as 1%.

Another way to write is:

1% = 1%
0.01 can = 1% but not always
0.01% does not equal 1%

I hope that clears things up but please don't let the end of the convo chain stop you if you're still confused.

Always happy to help.

Okay, let me try this again.

Percentages can be decimals but not all decimals are percentages.

You did not display a decimal to represent a percentage. You displayed an value from an incomplete determination of a percentage and tried to pass it off as the percentage.

No mathematician would let that kind of thing stand.

I would know.

I am one.

Rather than admitting you were wrong you would rather resort to insults than continue to behave rationally.

That's not an insult... It's an observation. If I wanted to insult you I would say something insulting. With no joke to it...

Oh, don't get me wrong. I'm hardly insulted by your attempts to insult. Fear mongerer.

How am I the fear monger when I'm the one saying it's not as bad as MSM narrative?