3 ms·
People really need to multiply that death rate against a population of people who are likely to be infected. And they are skipping this step for whatever reason
by spamizbad 5y ago
People really need to multiply that death rate against a population of people who are likely to be infected. And they are skipping this step for whatever reason.
A death rate of 20% isn’t bad if it’s a rare disease that has a 10 cases worldwide (2 deaths), whereas a 0.2% death rate is devastating for a highly contagious virus that spreads rapidly over the planet (millions of deaths)
- toss1 5y agoThat was already done, and specified in the comment. >>“Just to give you an idea of how bad that is, a three-sigma or a one-in-200-year catastrophe would be 10% increase over pre-pandemic,” he said. “So 40% is just unheard of.” In fact, it was the entire point of the article - this disease is so bad because the entire population of people is subject to infection, and the death and disability rate is very substantial. >>whereas a 0.2% death rate is devastating for a highly contagious virus that spreads rapidly over the planet (millions of deaths) We've got that. Here. In this topic and case. So, I'm really struggling to see the point of the comment. ?