4 ms·
Sure, but its the data we have, and therefore the best estimate we have of the likelihood, on average.
by betwixthewires 6y ago
Sure, but its the data we have, and therefore the best estimate we have of the likelihood, on average.
- maxerickson 6y agoThe denominator could be an estimate of the number of people in the group that have been infected, that would probably be a better estimate of the individual risk from getting infected than just averaging the deaths so far out over the whole group.
- betwixthewires 6y agoI believe that 1 in 10000 number is what you want it to be, the number of deaths per infection in that age group, not the number of deaths per population of that age group. 1 in 10000 infections leading to death gives us a presumably reasonably accurate likelihood of death rates if everyone in that age group were to get infected.
- maxerickson 6y agoIt's literally 7000/75 million, look at the numbers in the post I replied to and do the arithmetic.
- mikem170 6y agoI used the population of that age group as the denominator. The numbers of infected by age group are not as easy to find, and perhaps not so accurate (confirmed vs non-confirmed, etc). I've approached this numerically since numbers started coming out of NYC last spring. It's just the way I've been comfortable estimating/qualifying the risk.
- maxerickson 6y ago1/2 the population is almost certainly closer than all of it.
- mikem170 6y agoI think that I see what you mean, and that sounds fair to me. Basically that the disease may have only moved through half that population so far, if I follow your logic.