Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop
That's all I read. Why? Because the Santa Clara study has been shredded. But you don't need to understand the math involved. The death toll so far in New York City is 11,500 or so, from a population of 8,300,000. That's a death toll -- so far! -- of .139%. But people are still dying, lots, and no one thinks the entire population has been infected. A recent study suggests that 21% of the people in New York City has been infected, so multiply that death toll by 5 and you get a death rate of .693%, assuming no one else dies. But we also have reports that there are as many as 10x deaths in New York City as normal.
I have a full-time job that isn't this, though I do read the Twitter some (hi Hank), and even I know that this guy's fatality rate is way, way too low. Does he know? Is he misinformed, or trying to mislead? Did you think about this?
|
But you can’t adjust the the deaths and the instances of infection 1:1. You’re running them in parallel. Why? On what basis?
I also note, you’re quick to get behind that which supports you, quick to align against that which challenges you. Stanford has been shredded, but anecdata about NYC at a 10x death rate is worth noting?
Burning down the house to smoke out the mouse. It’s a rotten virus, but the more we learn, the more measured our approaches and less extreme our fear should be.
My concern on this, having spoken to friends who’ve had it, is possibly two weeks of malaise. That sucks.
If this kills me, considering the other statistical chances I’ve taken with my life, okay. It’s a perfectly comical and ignominious end.
Threaded Mode