This graphene circuit produces energy indefinitely

[ABC2019]

There is no slip, CFR stands for Case fatality rate, which is the translation of "apparent lethality".
And "clinically confirmed case" never meant "confirmed by hospitalization in a hospital or clinic".

Big bullshit
NEVER ever, and at no time in my case, have I associated CFR with any WHO definition.

Moreover it could in NO CASE be relevant since the definition of the WHO is there only to supplement the use of the CFR rate ... (which does not reflect reality). By mockery that cannot be the case for another reason which shows without any possible doubt that you sink each time into delaying maneuvers to prevent establishing the truth: sorry but personally, I NEVER refer to English terms (of my own free will).

If you never refer to terms in English, how can you say that a site en anglais does not use lethality "according to the WHO definition", when it only speaks of CFR and IFR, and for good reason since these are the English terms for case fatality rate (real or apparent)?

At all, at the beginning your reference site was OurWorldData https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus

However this site did not use (in the pages to which you gave the links,) the statistics of lethality according to the definition of the WHO.

Obamot or surrealism made man ....

[Obamot]

Why ? Well it's simple of course ... Because it's you who uses it and not me

I also note that if it is only this minor objection that tickles you, it is that you admit the rest!

So you implicitly admit that you were wrong! Poor old, you're required intensive care

Bye Bye...

[ABC2019]

Why ? Well it's simple of course ... Because it's you who uses it and not me

I tell you about your sentence on the ourworldindata site, who uses it and who is neither you nor me: how can you affirm "that he does not use it according to the WHO definition"(which is obviously totally false, he uses it - in English - exactly in the sense that the WHO defines it - in English too).
Unless you think the WHO has two different definitions in French and English?

But why do you persist in posting nonsense when everyone has understood for a long time that you are saying anything about the terms "mortality" and "lethality", which you are not even able to give a correct definition, and that if nobody but me answers you more on the subject, it's just because they think it's wasted effort?

[Obamot]

Stop your manipulations do you want ... You flushed out stiff, annihilated ratiboisé ....

Because NO NO NO, it is useless to introduce IFR alongside CFR to try to get out of the game ...
It is indeed the term CFR that you confused, and nothing else .... Point bar.


I stop there definitely because you really are seriously affected

[ABC2019]

Stop your manipulations do you want ... You flushed out stiff, annihilated ratiboisé ....

Because NO NO NO, it is useless to introduce IFR alongside CFR to try to get out of the game ...
[b] [font = Helvetica] This is the CFR term that you have confused, and nothing else ...

Do you think this WHO document is correct, yes or no?

https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/han ... .1-fre.pdf

[Obamot]

Perpetual pattern

So you restart the reboot strategy to wear out the interlocutor, type 1?
or do you have a goldfish memory, type 2?
or the subject does not interest you after all, type 3?
or do you have an undiagnosed mental health problem, type 4?
or are you just there to rot a forum while playing the troll, type 5?.

No introduction, it is indeed the term CFR that you have confused CQFD

No doubt.

bye Bye

[ABC2019]

so do you think this WHO document is correct, yes or no?

https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/han ... .1-fre.pdf

[eclectron]

and if you want me to answer your questionnaire which is once again only to create a diversion

Absolutely not a diversion but something essential to know who I am talking to.
The 5 proposals are the result of what you get through your words, not attempts to insult. ask yourself why many of us think that.

Thank you for your clarification of your intentions / motives.
So here we are facing the Don Quixote of the net. (vigilante who attacks windmills, his own monsters fruit of his mind)
You know in advance what others think, normal it is you yourself who gives them your own projections.
Just as you know in advance that the graphene circuit or a resistor does not generate energy. re
(no, I still wouldn't give the reasoning )

You will excuse me for not dwelling on convincing details which will never convince you anyway, we have already practiced you well here ...
I say that your behavior borders on pathology in terms of communication because you know in advance what others think and it is impossible to change your mind. Even with arguments, you say no one gives you any arguments.
There is a little side "you live in yourself and only listen to you". the others are only supports for your preconceived ideas.

Your biggest flaw is not practicing the question, towards yourself or towards others.
Normal, since you know beyond ... am I stupid? why would you do it if there is not a bloated ego ????
Except that with the grapheme and the resistance, you know wrong!
Except that concerning what I think about these systems, the thermo etc, you know wrong!

You would ask yourself: what is white noise for example, and what is the relationship with temperature, you would go to understanding ...

Don't be angry with me, but now that I have clearly understood your intentions and your operation, you frankly do not interest me, because a real diadoch will never be established between you and me, and that because of you. (Since you think you know everything in advance.)

As we don't say here, Bye (Don Quixote)!

[ABC2019]

and if you want me to answer your questionnaire which is once again only to create a diversion

Absolutely not a diversion but something essential to know who I am talking to.
The 5 proposals are the result of what you get through your words, not attempts to insult. ask yourself why many of us think that.

it is very simple, those who think that are those who have the attitude that I described; they defend positions that are totally contrary to scientific data, they don't justify anything, they don't answer questions, and afterwards they call others trolls.

It does not surprise me at all that they are in my face ...

And you confirm it with each post, including this one: you still haven't explained what the two temperatures were, what the ∆T / T was worth, or what the heat and work balance was worth, in short the basic questions when we do thermo. You only know how to spread yourself in personal attacks and insults, reproaching others for your own attitudes.

[eclectron]

you still haven't explained what the two temperatures were

Indeed I leave you in your poop of pretentious.
read your first posts on the subject.
Yet you had a lot of clues today .... and not even a thank you?

You only know how to spread yourself in personal attacks and insults,

Only with stubborn people with whom dialogue is not possible or who do not respect me first.
I spent too much time on you ... this is also good, I understand!

As I understood your operation, there is no reason that I insult you. I sympathize with your closed mind but maybe you are happy as well, so good luck but without me.