Active Users:426 Time:13/09/2025 11:37:22 AM
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 636 Views
Co-morbidities are not just pre-existing conditions - 11/12/2020 10:08:18 PM 268 Views
Clearly you're better at this than I am... - 12/12/2020 12:08:29 AM 262 Views
Thank you - 12/12/2020 07:34:20 AM 246 Views
Probably a combination... - 12/12/2020 06:08:26 PM 253 Views
Also, I'm happy you're feeling better now! *NM* - 11/12/2020 10:11:15 PM 131 Views
While we are making conclusions from personal anecdotes... - 12/12/2020 02:17:52 AM 277 Views
For the overwhelming majority (>99%) coronavirus is going to be an inconvenience - 12/12/2020 03:46:06 AM 248 Views
That is an exaggeration - 12/12/2020 08:18:39 AM 280 Views
Nope - 13/12/2020 01:22:48 AM 245 Views
I did account for that - 13/12/2020 07:04:01 AM 269 Views
Mortality is around 0.6% - 14/12/2020 03:19:46 PM 381 Views
I simply calculated - 15/12/2020 07:05:19 AM 271 Views
Your calculations are wrong - 16/12/2020 03:49:55 AM 262 Views
It was a very simple model - 16/12/2020 06:39:37 AM 265 Views
Lies, damned lies, and statistics. - 12/12/2020 05:51:37 AM 287 Views
Yes, arbitrary restrictions are BS - 12/12/2020 08:45:28 AM 245 Views
On restrictions... - 12/12/2020 06:21:16 PM 245 Views
Re: On restrictions... - 15/12/2020 08:50:38 AM 227 Views
Re: On restrictions... - 16/12/2020 04:24:08 AM 236 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 113 Views
If all you do is a lockdown, sure - 17/12/2020 12:35:24 AM 240 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 129 Views
Calling someone a pussy implies there is no irrevocable change. - 12/12/2020 08:23:22 PM 257 Views
A tragedy - 12/12/2020 10:25:17 PM 274 Views
Cannoli your metaphor is not very apt - 12/12/2020 10:54:18 PM 281 Views
How is the metaphor not apt? - 16/12/2020 03:58:52 AM 233 Views
The metaphor is a pussy! *NM* - 16/12/2020 11:48:37 PM 119 Views
If I could attempt to steel-man this argument... - 17/12/2020 07:23:03 PM 268 Views
since we're being nit picky on this analysis.... - 17/12/2020 08:15:00 PM 227 Views
If we are going to get nitpicky and share long conversations - 17/12/2020 08:49:18 PM 227 Views
Sure, but... - 17/12/2020 10:56:36 PM 236 Views

Reply to Message