Active Users:1405 Time:23/09/2026 08:08:59 PM
I simply calculated Floffe Send a noteboard - 15/12/2020 07:05:19 AM

The number of deaths divided by the number of confirmed cases, which comes out as 1.83%. That means that yeah, there are probably a lot more people who have actually been infected but not tested. And/or that the mortality rate now is lower than it was back in March and April, because we know better how to treat it.

But for my very simple calculation of the number of deaths, I used 0.2% among healthy people under 50. Perhaps that is still a bit high, let's slash it in half and you "only" get 100 000 dead in that group (or just below a third of the annual number of deaths from cancer, accidents and other diseases).

Here are a couple of paragraphs that stood out for me in the WebMD article:

Petrilli said it's correct to say that certain patients are at higher risk than others, including the elderly, those with chronic medical conditions, and pregnant women. "But that doesn't mean that the patients who are not in those categories are at low risk. It just means that they are not at as high of a risk."

Although age-specific mortality rate for young people is relatively low, they still suffered many excess deaths this year. Faust, the emergency physician from Boston, and colleagues authored a medRxiv preprint study showing that COVID-19 was likely the leading cause of death in people between the ages of 25 and 44.

--- signature starts here ---

I am the Demon of Delightfulness and Sinister Smirkings!

e^(πi)+1=0
identity named after the Terry Pratchett of 18th century mathematics
This message last edited by Floffe on 15/12/2020 at 07:09:14 AM
Reply to message
The China Flu isn't nearly as bad as they are making it out to be - 11/12/2020 08:54:20 PM 793 Views
Co-morbidities are not just pre-existing conditions - 11/12/2020 10:08:18 PM 413 Views
Clearly you're better at this than I am... - 12/12/2020 12:08:29 AM 391 Views
Thank you - 12/12/2020 07:34:20 AM 370 Views
Probably a combination... - 12/12/2020 06:08:26 PM 380 Views
Also, I'm happy you're feeling better now! *NM* - 11/12/2020 10:11:15 PM 202 Views
While we are making conclusions from personal anecdotes... - 12/12/2020 02:17:52 AM 414 Views
For the overwhelming majority (>99%) coronavirus is going to be an inconvenience - 12/12/2020 03:46:06 AM 390 Views
That is an exaggeration - 12/12/2020 08:18:39 AM 422 Views
Nope - 13/12/2020 01:22:48 AM 379 Views
I did account for that - 13/12/2020 07:04:01 AM 407 Views
Mortality is around 0.6% - 14/12/2020 03:19:46 PM 537 Views
I simply calculated - 15/12/2020 07:05:19 AM 408 Views
Your calculations are wrong - 16/12/2020 03:49:55 AM 428 Views
It was a very simple model - 16/12/2020 06:39:37 AM 388 Views
Lies, damned lies, and statistics. - 12/12/2020 05:51:37 AM 416 Views
Yes, arbitrary restrictions are BS - 12/12/2020 08:45:28 AM 389 Views
On restrictions... - 12/12/2020 06:21:16 PM 375 Views
Re: On restrictions... - 15/12/2020 08:50:38 AM 363 Views
Re: On restrictions... - 16/12/2020 04:24:08 AM 364 Views
Why is it a false choice ? Isn't lockdown exactly that ? I know the US had some lockdowns *NM* - 16/12/2020 07:34:30 AM 175 Views
If all you do is a lockdown, sure - 17/12/2020 12:35:24 AM 374 Views
I'm not sure I agree but as the song says, I'll let it go *NM* - 17/12/2020 07:07:38 AM 191 Views
Calling someone a pussy implies there is no irrevocable change. - 12/12/2020 08:23:22 PM 386 Views
A tragedy - 12/12/2020 10:25:17 PM 413 Views
Cannoli your metaphor is not very apt - 12/12/2020 10:54:18 PM 412 Views
How is the metaphor not apt? - 16/12/2020 03:58:52 AM 362 Views
The metaphor is a pussy! *NM* - 16/12/2020 11:48:37 PM 180 Views
If I could attempt to steel-man this argument... - 17/12/2020 07:23:03 PM 392 Views
since we're being nit picky on this analysis.... - 17/12/2020 08:15:00 PM 357 Views
If we are going to get nitpicky and share long conversations - 17/12/2020 08:49:18 PM 359 Views
Sure, but... - 17/12/2020 10:56:36 PM 357 Views

Reply to Message