Nine States Refuse to Issue Stay-At-Home Orders, South Dakota's Governor Says They're 'Draconian Measures' Like the 'Chinese Government Has Done'

submitted by RickC-137 from thegatewaypundit.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]danuker 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Let me recap.

Italy

I got the 54% higher risk of death due to COVID, compared to regular death by dividing COVID deaths in a day by typical daily deaths.

Question 1 for you. Do you not agree that the risk of death in Italy was 54% higher in that 24-hour period?

World Yesterday

I updated to the newest complete data. Deaths due to COVID yesterday: 5229 as per here Deaths in general yesterday: 55.95 million as per here divided by 365.25 = 153182.

5229/153182 = 3.4%

Question 2 for you. Is this not the same computation as above, but for the world instead of Italy?

Question 3. Was this what you wanted to know?

[–]astronautrob 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

No that isn't what I wanted to know, I know mortality rate we've now calculated it twice in addition to me knowing the information beforehand. Talk about going in circles. What I was asking if for your "risk of death" percentage for the whole world in say the last 24hrs, right? It seems like your risk of death percentage factors in time, so wouldn't mortality rate have the same limits imposed? Now, are you trying to say that the mortality rate and this "risk of death" are interchangeable? Idt that's true from what I meantime do above, mortality rate is deaths over cases by 100, no time factor involved here, and your "risk of death" rate is the same but over a 24hr period am I right? So those wouldn't be the same, right? This seems so elementary but please if you can explain to me how I am getting this wrong...?

it's definitely not true the way you portrayed it in your first post. So while the computation may be the same it'd the flawed way you are using or looking at the data. Taking a 24hr period, the worst 24hr period in the country hit the hardest, does not give an accurate picture of a mortality rate. What does give you a more accurate picture is the second computation you did, using worldwide data over the course of the whole pandemic. You wrote in your first comment that the flu doesn't increase your risk of death 54%. That's it. You didn't say this was in a 24hr period using just Italys numbers and that it probably doesn't apply to most places or cases. See what I'm getting at here? If you are saying the two computations are the same then you should of original posted that COVID would raise you "risk of death" or tf you want to call it, 3.5% right? But then aren't we also talk about mortality rate? So isn't your risk of death computation just mortality rate for a given time period in a given area? and then you try to apply that to everyone, because in your opinion Italy is not an isolated situation and this situation will happen other places, right? All that is conjecture. I hope you're still following along. This calculation you are doing is flawed. For instance, say we took the worst 24hr period of idk something like mers or sars. Think mers had a 30% mortality rate or something. Idk for fact don't quote me, but my point is you could take pandemics, truncate the data set to worst case senior, and probably come up with all crazy numbers. Again, see what I'm getting at?