You know what TDS is. You see which post I replied to. You do the "math"...Originally Posted by The Wengerbabies
You know what TDS is. You see which post I replied to. You do the "math"...
Can you point me to the bit in Report 9 where it predicts a 6% mortality rate?
Here is the report:
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imp...9-Report-9.pdf
Here's a screenshot of part of it where they give estimated mortality per age:
So yeah, very dangerous for older people, not so much for younger people, which is correct.
And here's a quote from the report:
80% of the population is 52.8 million, an estimate of 510,000 is less than 1% of that. So where is this 6% coming from?In the (unlikely) absence of any control measures or spontaneous changes in individual behaviour, we would expect a peak in mortality (daily deaths) to occur after approximately 3 months (Figure 1A). In such scenarios, given an estimated R0 of 2.4, we predict 81% of the GB and US populations would be
infected over the course of the epidemic. The higher peak in mortality in GB is due to the smaller size of the country and its older population compared with the US. In total, in an unmitigated epidemic, we would predict approximately 510,000 deaths
SECOND WAVE!!!11!!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-53315702
I'm not going to read the whole report to try and back up a claim someone else made.Can you point me to the bit in Report 9 where it predicts a 6% mortality rate?
Here is the report:
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imp...9-Report-9.pdf
Here's a screenshot of part of it where they give estimated mortality per age:
So yeah, very dangerous for older people, not so much for younger people, which is correct.
And here's a quote from the report:
80% of the population is 52.8 million, an estimate of 510,000 is less than 1% of that. So where is this 6% coming from?
Point stands though Ferguson is a clown and have been making wrong predictions for decades, can't even follow his own advice and the virus has shown to be barely more than a flu for young (and a very loose definition of young at that), healthy people.
OPEN UP!
Further evidence that it was a huge overreaction https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53320155 ""Coronavirus: Majority testing positive have no symptoms"
You seem to have left out the part of that article which says
"Between the end of March and June, there were 59,000 more deaths than the five-year average".
This is not like a regular flu season. I think what was an over-reaction though was shutting down the entire sodding economy and locking everyone down when statistically speaking this thing is only dangerous for older people or those with certain underlying conditions.
"Brazil's President Bolsonaro tests positive"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-53319517
To be expected. But as reported a few days ago the weekly death rate is back to normal (may actually have been less). It's killed off the vulnerable now it ain't so bad.You seem to have left out the part of that article which says
"Between the end of March and June, there were 59,000 more deaths than the five-year average".
This is not like a regular flu season. I think what was an over-reaction though was shutting down the entire sodding economy and locking everyone down when statistically speaking this thing is only dangerous for older people or those with certain underlying conditions.
Obviously we should continue to shield the vulnerable but it's doing more harm than good. I know my mental health has suffered being locked away, and I worry about those who are mentally weaker than me. Not to mention all the cancer patients/cardiac patients etc. who had treatments postponed or screenings cancelled. The cure can't be worse than the disease.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
