4 ms·
> The vast majority of currently active cases right now are for the 0-9 age group. Either I can't read graphs, or you can't. And you absolutely cannot take th
by jtbayly 5y ago
> The vast majority of currently active cases right now are for the 0-9 age group.
Either I can't read graphs, or you can't.
And you absolutely cannot take the overall mortality rate and apply it to the one age group we know practically none have died from in the past.
So, as I said, the data doesn't bear this out so far as I've seen.
- shakna 5y ago> Either I can't read graphs, or you can't. That would be _you_. Here's the numbers from said active case graph. + 0-9 - 112 + 10-19 - 100 + 20-29 - 78 + 30-39 - 105 + 40-49 - 54 + 50-59 - 25 + 60-69 - 14 + 70-79 - 3 + 80-89 - 1
- 22c 5y agoThe Victorian government data you linked is very unclear. It treats cases in aged care vs. not in aged care as separate sets, but is not clear on whether or not hospitalisation cases come from both sets. At the top of the page it says "cases in hospital by age" but I can't seem to find any reference to the age of those people in hospital. What's clear to me, though, is in the age group of 0-29 there's been a total of 1 death in Victoria. It's not a whole lot to go on, but it seems unlikely to me that many in the 0-29 group require hospital treatment.
- jtbayly 5y agoJust to be clear, you said: > The vast majority of currently active cases right now are for the 0-9 age group. And then you shared data that shows 0-9 age group with less than 30%. Since we apparently agree on how to read the chart, I can only assume the words “vast majority” were not what you meant.