2 ms·
> Around half of SF Yeah, that doesn't work. If 50% of SF had been infected and 22 died the fatality rate would be 22 / (0.5 * 800,000) = 0.0055%. With that f
by IAmEveryone 6y ago
> Around half of SF
Yeah, that doesn't work. If 50% of SF had been infected and 22 died the fatality rate would be 22 / (0.5 * 800,000) = 0.0055%.
With that fatality rate, 11,500 / 0.0055% = 209 million need to be infected in New York City to explain their death count, or about 25 times the population.
More intuitively, because you seem to prefer arguments without actual numbers: if half of the population in SF have been infected, that limits the worst case at double what SF is experiencing. But it is entirely obvious that many regions all over the world are doing far worse, disproving that notion.
So here's your question:
- how do you make these numbers work?
And one extra:
- Do you see the irony of complaining about a lack of scientific rigour in a post that is almost completely emotional? I. e. "sheeple", "Fox News", "basically empty"...