4 ms·
If I'm not mistaken, the rate in the paper is bigger, 0.25% against 22k/11M = 0.20% in Belgium. But if the newspaper I read are right, there is a catch: when t
by idoubtit 6y ago
If I'm not mistaken, the rate in the paper is bigger, 0.25% against 22k/11M = 0.20% in Belgium.
But if the newspaper I read are right, there is a catch: when tests were not available, Belgium counted as a covid death every case where it could be suspected. Even nowadays, in case of comorbidity, covid is always written down as the cause of death. So 22k is probably a maximum, and, taking into accound the 25% uncertainty on the denominator, the real rate could very different.
- timerol 6y agoI think you're misreading the comment you replied to. "+/- 25% of a 11M of the population having been infected" means about 25% of 11M, or 2.75M, officially infected. 22k/2.75M would imply a 0.8% fatality rate.
- raphaelj 6y agoExactly. And with respect to the counting, it seems like the Belgian numbers more of less match the reported excess deaths in 2020 within 10% [1]. [1] https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.01.27.21250604v1.full.pdf https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.01.27.21250604v...