The book never denies the impact of lockdowns. The book questions the impact of lockdowns. Did the lockdowns in the state of New York and New Jersey lead to more COVID-19 deaths? I think the facts show that locking down people in nursing homes with other nursing home residents led to the deaths of thousands of people in New York and New Jersey. The book presents the facts.
The numbers are wrong. A simple calculator shows that the 60 percent is false (Talking about the carrier)
The numbers are correct. The numbers are in the actual articles and true if you read it. The rate was like 59.4% if you calculate it. There were other data that showed an even lower infection rate. I read the article.
The author points out the mortality rate of the virus. It is approaching that of the flu in the US if you adjust for things like deaths caused by co-housing people with and without COVID-19 in nursing homes. The point is it's not 3% it's approaching something like 0.2% now with adjustments. Are they the correct adjustments? That's for you to decide. You need the facts to decide how we should compute the mortality rate.
It seems that the author doesn't know the meaning of the median. Example, let’s say we have 7 dead people due to COVID and these are their age:
20, 21, 23, 80, 81, 82, 84
In this example, the median is 80, but does it mean that only older people die of COVID? of course not, what about the people on age 20, 21, 23? (in my example)
The author states the statistics as they appear in the articles/journals. They are all large sample sizes. Your example should be N=7, mean=55.85, median=80 due to the small sample size. This would describe your data. The author correctly presents the mean and median values.
The author did not provide any reference for the numbers about Italy and the United Kingdom
This refers to the number of deaths in young people. No reference but I think the numbers match those of the time of publication. A reference would have been better.
The author provides his own opinion of the explanation of the “Case” and concludes. I was hoping to see references.
The author's point was that the epidemiologist appears to have purposefully misrepresented the effect the virus has on younger people by using the term "case" and not providing further information about the fact that "case" only meant they were infected and not that there was a very small risk of serious illness or death.
“The website uses the higher figure” How do you say it without any references?
The reference is above this sentence. I cannot paste links in a review.
I am not against Censorship. Let's make an example. Imagine someone makes a website on the internet and mentions in his/her websites that based on his/her research, drinking bleach is the cure for coronavirus. Obviously that is a wrong statement. But if you allow this to be online on the internet and someone takes the person's advice and drink bleach and dies, would you still say that it is a good idea to have his/her website running? This imaginary website spreads the wrong information and leads people to death!
This statement makes the argument for the book. Instead of "drinking bleach", replace that phrase with "putting COVID-19 patience in nursing homes" and you have the New York and New Jersey state public policy that killed many people. This is why censorship and book burning needs to be fought. The facts in this book are vital to have. The truth is up to you to determine. If you think the numbers are incorrect, write your own book, create a website, put out social media, write a review of the book or watch CNN. Not having information leads and led to many deaths. Never be afraid of the truth. Have a discussion about the issues and the facts. We need to have that debate and not ban books.
If somebody writes a counter book showing other facts I'll read it too.
Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required. Learn more
Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.
Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.
Loading your book clubs
There was a problem loading your book clubs. Please try again.
Not in a club? Learn more
Join or create book clubs
Choose books together
Track your books
Bring your club to Amazon Book Clubs, start a new book club and invite your friends to join, or find a club that’s right for you for free.
![Unreported Truths about COVID-19 and Lockdowns: Part 1: Introduction and Death Counts and Estimates by [Alex Berenson]](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/41E+ykApA8L._SY346_.jpg)
Follow the Author
Something went wrong. Please try your request again later.
Limited-Time Offer
3 Months FREE of Audible Premium Plus. Get this deal
Next 3 for you in this series
See full series
Books In This Series (5 Books)
Complete Series
Page 1 of 1Start OverPage 1 of 1
Customers who viewed this item also viewed
Page 1 of 1 Start overPage 1 of 1
Popular Highlights in this book
No, the reason we initially agreed to lockdowns was to “flatten the curve,” which is a polite way of saying “to prevent coronavirus patients from collapsing our health-care system.” But the system was never in danger of collapsing, lockdowns or no.Highlighted by 1,546 Kindle readers- German research institute reported in mid-April that lockdowns had been broadly useless.Highlighted by 1,316 Kindle readers
- In the end, New York never had more than 4,000 coronavirus patients on ventilators – making Cuomo’s facts and data and numbers and projections off by about tenfold.Highlighted by 1,227 Kindle readers
About the author
Follow authors to get new release updates, plus improved recommendations.
Well researched and easy to read. Berenson leaves little in this booklet except the raw data with clear citations. I suggest purchasing both a physical copy and the e-book. The e-book offers links to open up the specific source he references, while the paperback allows for better retention but has lengthy URLs on most pages. Journalism of this quality is difficult to come by these days. Thank you, Alex!
Images in this review
Top reviews from other countries
vortex
Imperial College vs Oxford University team
Reviewed in the United Kingdom 🇬🇧 on June 5, 2020
Thomas Purcell
Watch a box set or read the truth - you decide.
Reviewed in the United Kingdom 🇬🇧 on June 6, 2020Amazon Customer
About time someone talked some sense about Covid 19
Reviewed in the United Kingdom 🇬🇧 on June 5, 2020deanosrs
Cutting through the media hysteria
Reviewed in the United Kingdom 🇬🇧 on June 5, 2020niallsop
Mainstream media should read and react
Reviewed in the United Kingdom 🇬🇧 on June 6, 2020
