normanoffside wrote: » Because Perhaps not everyone (or even close to it) in the world is getting tested in order to get accurate figures. Whereas maybe in the military a lot more at getting tested. That’s why studies were large portions of a small population being tested for scientific purposes are important. Would you concede that in countries where tests are only carried out on patients who present to hospital in a very unwell condition, then by definition their death rates are not representative of true mortality rates?
normanoffside wrote: » Death rate is 0.37% going by extensive studies in Germany and Iceland (and even in those studies there is bias towards a tendency to test the sick). I’m not even sure where you got 21% from. In our case the infection/death rate is 4% and that is going off a system where only vulnerable and health workers are being tested. If we had the capacity to test all people with mild symptoms our death rate would be much lower and that’s before you even factor in the 50+% of asymptomatic carriers.
ShineOn7 wrote: » What an omnishambles this thread has turned into Time to unfollow for at least tonight https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1rRszEYKdM
alwald wrote: » Why should we take a figure from the US military, with a total of 4500 cases, and expect those figures to be the same across the world instead of looking at worldwide figures? This is a serious question as this virus for some people is a question of life/death.
normanoffside wrote: » Most of the deaths are civilian, dependant and contractors (I assume a lot more of these are older/retired?)
niallo27 wrote: » Ok sorry let's say 60% of the UK's population get it, about 40 million, 21% death rate would mean over 8 million dead.
ILoveYourVibes wrote: » I would assume they are fit healthy young and exercise etc.
Cupatae wrote: » how did you get from 70k the original post, to 13 million? Some math gymnastics there.
normanoffside wrote: » Posted on another thread but of some interest here I assume: Here’s another interesting one in the State by State breakdown of American statistics.https://bnonews.com/index.php/2020/01/tracking-coronavirus-u-s-data/ If you go the stats on US military (listed as it’s own State) it has 15 deaths from over 4500 cases, a death rate of 0.33% Not sure if the military get tested more than other sections of society, I would assume so?
niallo27 wrote: » So you think if uk didnt have a lockdown you would expect 13 million deaths. How quickly would you expect them to reach 1 million for example.
Cupatae wrote: » If we didnt lock down, id say we wouldnt be far off it, Uk is at 11k as is.
niallo27 wrote: » The fact the two of you are acting like complete knobs is really not helping though.
Cupatae wrote: » If we didnt lock down? the Uk were slow doing it and look at the price they are paying already. Just shows how important the lock down is. They are already predicting 65k deaths by august.
alwald wrote: » To calculate the global percentage of deaths we need the total number of cases with an outcome and the total number of deaths. Total number of cases with an outcome is 560216 which is 100% in our maths and the total number of deaths is 118984 which is X%. So (118984*100)/560216=21%. The total number of active cases is out of the equation as their outcome is still unknown so 21% is the current death rate but is subject to change.
alwald wrote: » I reckon the same, this lockdown is more necessary than we thought . Thankfully I have other things to look forward to tomorrow .
Jenbach110 wrote: » I think you will find my maths were correct and certain posters ended up with egg on face
Jenbach110 wrote: » Id say we would be a long way off it
Cupatae wrote: » Have you figured out how to lift the restrictions yet? or how to apply the Icelandic Method over here?:D
alwald wrote: » You were very good with maths earlier so I am sure you will figure it out...and I mean it!
normanoffside wrote: » Death rate is 0.37% going by extensive studies in Germany and Iceland (and even in those studies there is bias towards a tendency to test the sick).
lalababa wrote: » Now the median number of a set of numbers is the middle one. But the median age is the highest age - the lowest, divided by 2 and added to the lowest. Which would indicate nearly all of the 33 were over 80. Which would indicate that there are a few/many nursing homes where it is making rack. But this isn't being reported. Why..f**k knows.
tdf7187 wrote: » indeed and a particularly pessimistic one. 70% infection rate and a 21% death rate implies around 70000 deaths in ROI. Does the other poster really expect that?
Jenbach110 wrote: » The post you refer to is by no means a factual clarification. It is at best a presumption
