But you continue to ignore the question.
We've been over this. Morbidity first, then mortality. No one dies unless they are sick first. The morbidity vs mortality argument is complete nonsense when there's a direct correlation. This is the same argument all pro-vaccine people make. Like you are all taught what to say.
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
And of course the guy ignorantly conflating mortality with incidence of disease is a Bitcoin advocate.

- Show replies
-
-
-
In healthcare, when the overwhelming majority of practicing physicians agrees on something, we call it consensus. That’s a good thing. It’s different from dogma. It’s not rigid. It’s influenced by data. When new data comes out, consensus evolves.
-
This is why I don’t understand antivaxxers who are upset because “you all say the same things”. It’s not that we were trained in pharma shill school to say them. It’s that the evidence has led us to consensus on that point.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
But not everyone that get sick dies. That is why morbidity is important.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
No, not really. Yes their is a difference between being sick and being dead and their is a correlation between the two. But what you are seeing is improvements in medical care so that less sick people die. 1
-
AIDS being one good example. Mortality rates have declined. Still better to never get AIDS. Cars are so much safer now. Still better never to get into an accident in the first place. One way to reduce morality is to reduce incidents
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
No one dies unless sick first? Kobe Bryant’s widow begs to differ.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.