13 ms·

Is your goal to just be as misleading as possible in this conversation? Yes, of course more 55-74s have died – there are far, far more of them than there are >

Is your goal to just be as misleading as possible in this conversation? Yes, of course more 55-74s have died – there are far, far more of them than there are >85s. Normalized, COVID is far more lethal (8x more lethal) for >85s than for your range. Here's the mortality rates: 55-74: 0.28% 85+: 2.5% https://www.statista.com/statistics/241488/population-of-the-us-by-sex-and-age/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/241488/population-of-the... https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm

soperj 6y ago
How in any way is that misleading? The actual numbers are more representative than lethality percentages when we're talking about contribution to society.
- StavrosK 6y ago
  What's more representative is "life years lost", and malaria wins there (we've lost many more years to it).
  - soperj 6y ago
    How do you calculate that in an area of the world with the highest rate of child mortality?
    - StavrosK 6y ago
      Same as in any other area, assume malaria isn't killing babies and do the math. Your question sounds rhetorical but is too simple to answer, so I'm confused.