5 ms·
> If less than 30% of the additional deaths this year were attributed to corona virus and 30% lies within a reasonable variance of this number over the years, t
by fcurts 7y ago
> If less than 30% of the additional deaths this year were attributed to corona virus and 30% lies within a reasonable variance of this number over the years, then we wouldn't have noticed, or not?
You seem to be misinterpreting the statement, which says that even though "only" 30% of additional deaths are proven to be caused by the virus, the real number is likely higher.
It should be obvious that the situation in northern Italy is far beyond "reasonable variance". Google is your friend.
- mmmmmyumyum 7y agoWell yeah.. it is likely higher.. let's say it's 50% or even 200%. That could still be within the variance. If you can't tell me what this variance is, then it is not obvious at all that the situation in Italy is far beyond "reasonable variance"! So far you have not given me any evidence that proves this statistically. Also you're misinterpreting the statement "it is likely higher" and assume this means it is definitely higher.
- fcurts 7y agoPlease stop spreading FUD. Thank you.
- mmmmmyumyum 7y agoThat's what I meant by "I want this to be a statistical discussion". I'm not spreading FUD at all. Those are all valid questions from a statistical point of view. I'm definitely not spreading Fear. Fear is what is spread by the media when showing military trucks carrying away corpses and people subsequently assume that the situation is very very bad without asking for baselines.
- fcurts 7y agohttps://reason.com/2020/03/17/italian-daily-death-rate-up-20-because-of-coronavirus-lombardy-up-about-80/ https://reason.com/2020/03/17/italian-daily-death-rate-up-20... The evidence is overwhelming. Questioning it is an extraordinary claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I won't comment further.
- mmmmmyumyum 7y agoThanks for not contributing anything useful to this discussion.
- mmmmmyumyum 7y agoNote: The two paragraphs in the link you replied with, are not evidence at all. For example the author also neglects the variance in the mortality rate each year. If they were evidence, then the author would deserve a nobel price in epidemiology. On the other hand, here's a nobel price winner saying: "While many epidemiologists are warning of months, or even years, of massive social disruption and millions of deaths, Levitt says the data simply don’t support such a dire scenario — especially in areas where reasonable social distancing measures are in place." This article concludes with “The real situation is not as nearly as terrible as they make it out to be,”. https://www.latimes.com/science/story/2020-03-22/coronavirus-outbreak-nobel-laureate https://www.latimes.com/science/story/2020-03-22/coronavirus...
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]