[notmyjob]

I suspect many people commit the grave sin of mixing data sources to derive percentages, which seems almost impossible not to do in this case. I also strongly suspect that rates of infection (the denominator in question) were inflated to some extent during the pandemic as insurers and hmo were incentivized to detect covid even when it may not have been the primary reason for presenting. There were also disincentives or at least a lack of incentive to detect teratogenic effects of the lipid nanoparticle based preventative, and unfortunately likely personal biases as the preventative was highly politicized. But I’m not thinking about it much deeper than that, so you may be right.

[Llamamoe]

The reported rates might have been inflated compared to what people presented with, but wastewater tracking and excess death measures all suggest that as a whole, infections were severely under-counted, possibly by a factor of up to over 2x.

Majority of the studies on myocarditis after vaccination found very low rates, with close to zero moderate to serious cases, and a full return to baseline of whatever the metrics studied were, I don't remember.

[notmyjob]

So if we were undercounting the denominator and over-counting the numerator (long covid) that would support my initial conjecture right?