03-17-2020, 04:15 AM
I wonder if most people's take away from the usually reported 2.4% or 4% death rate stats generally used is that 4 out of a 100 people will die. But that seems very contradictory to the per capita calculations.
Briefly, your per capita calculations don't account for the fact that there has not been 100% infection so while the deaths for the total population are small now, they would approach 3% or 4% IF everyone gets infected (which is what social distancing etc is trying to at least slow, or prevent if better therapeutics become available over time)
- "97% percent of people recover fine, what's the big deal?"
- "If I gave you 100 skittles and told you 3 of them could kill you.... I’m sure you would avoid the ****ing skittles"
https://twitter.com/MrDre_/status/1238612571193827335
Briefly, your per capita calculations don't account for the fact that there has not been 100% infection so while the deaths for the total population are small now, they would approach 3% or 4% IF everyone gets infected (which is what social distancing etc is trying to at least slow, or prevent if better therapeutics become available over time)
- "97% percent of people recover fine, what's the big deal?"
- "If I gave you 100 skittles and told you 3 of them could kill you.... I’m sure you would avoid the ****ing skittles"
https://twitter.com/MrDre_/status/1238612571193827335