3 ms·
>>> So if in one population you get 458 deaths from Covid compared to 57,263 from all other causes and in the other population you get 38,964 from covid compare
by eagsalazar2 5y ago
>>> So if in one population you get 458 deaths from Covid compared to 57,263 from all other causes and in the other population you get 38,964 from covid compared to 65,170 from all other causes, we can immediately tell that one population fared much better at least when it comes to your chance to die of covid compared to chance of dying to all other causes.
I think your math is off. What if the first population only has 458 people in it? 100% mortality for that population would obviously suggest you want to be part of the other population even if their total deaths were higher. The issue I'm calling out is that we don't know the size of each population. I certainly don't think vaccines increase mortality, I actually believe it has a large positive impact. The point is this data doesn't help us understand how impactful it really is and, given all the debate over this, if they'd framed the data with better context, this could actually be a very useful study in ending that debate.
- lmilcin 5y ago> I think your math is off. What if the first population only has 458 people in it? I think your thinking is off. How do you get 57,263 other deaths in a population of 458? This data is not comparing population sizes. It avoids it by comparing your chance of dying to covid to something else that is supposed stable between populations -- chance of dying to all other causes. We just need to know that population sizes being compared are large enough (as evidenced from the number of deaths included) to be statistically significant.