Active Users:470 Time:06/06/2026 11:10:37 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 746 Views
Co-morbidities are not just pre-existing conditions - 11/12/2020 10:08:18 PM 369 Views
Clearly you're better at this than I am... - 12/12/2020 12:08:29 AM 349 Views
Thank you - 12/12/2020 07:34:20 AM 334 Views
Probably a combination... - 12/12/2020 06:08:26 PM 336 Views
Also, I'm happy you're feeling better now! *NM* - 11/12/2020 10:11:15 PM 180 Views
While we are making conclusions from personal anecdotes... - 12/12/2020 02:17:52 AM 366 Views
For the overwhelming majority (>99%) coronavirus is going to be an inconvenience - 12/12/2020 03:46:06 AM 342 Views
That is an exaggeration - 12/12/2020 08:18:39 AM 380 Views
Nope - 13/12/2020 01:22:48 AM 333 Views
I did account for that - 13/12/2020 07:04:01 AM 360 Views
Mortality is around 0.6% - 14/12/2020 03:19:46 PM 493 Views
I simply calculated - 15/12/2020 07:05:19 AM 361 Views
Your calculations are wrong - 16/12/2020 03:49:55 AM 381 Views
It was a very simple model - 16/12/2020 06:39:37 AM 351 Views
Lies, damned lies, and statistics. - 12/12/2020 05:51:37 AM 379 Views
Yes, arbitrary restrictions are BS - 12/12/2020 08:45:28 AM 341 Views
On restrictions... - 12/12/2020 06:21:16 PM 333 Views
Re: On restrictions... - 15/12/2020 08:50:38 AM 316 Views
Re: On restrictions... - 16/12/2020 04:24:08 AM 321 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 151 Views
If all you do is a lockdown, sure - 17/12/2020 12:35:24 AM 325 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 169 Views
Calling someone a pussy implies there is no irrevocable change. - 12/12/2020 08:23:22 PM 344 Views
A tragedy - 12/12/2020 10:25:17 PM 360 Views
Cannoli your metaphor is not very apt - 12/12/2020 10:54:18 PM 367 Views
How is the metaphor not apt? - 16/12/2020 03:58:52 AM 320 Views
The metaphor is a pussy! *NM* - 16/12/2020 11:48:37 PM 155 Views
If I could attempt to steel-man this argument... - 17/12/2020 07:23:03 PM 352 Views
since we're being nit picky on this analysis.... - 17/12/2020 08:15:00 PM 313 Views
If we are going to get nitpicky and share long conversations - 17/12/2020 08:49:18 PM 316 Views
Sure, but... - 17/12/2020 10:56:36 PM 318 Views

Reply to Message