Lowbankclaret wrote: ↑Wed Feb 19, 2020 3:47 pm
You means figures like these factual ones.
8D205194-3E48-49B5-B6D8-00247C10896D.png
Yes the factual ones that you insist on misinterpreting all the time...
EDIT (because I have a conscience...)
Consider this...
At the start of the outbreak (figures for illustrative purposes only):
100 confirmed cases, 10 closed cases (all deaths) by your argument that’s a 100% death rate because you ignore the other 90 people who are most likely going to live.
Few weeks later, 1000 confirmed cases, 100 closed cases (50 survived and 50 deaths) again by your argument that’s 50% death rate because you ignore the 900 people who are most likely to live.
Couple of months later, 100,000 confirmed cases, 10,000 closed cases (8000 survived and 2000 deaths) again your death rate is 20% because you ignore the 90,000 who are likely to live.
Roll on to 6 months later 1M confirmed cases, and it’s almost run it’s course now, 500,000 closed cases (485,000 survived and 15,000 deaths - your death rate is now much closer to what it actually is for the outbreak, but still higher at 3% than the ACTUAL death rate which is closer to an estimate of 2%.
12 months on, and out of the 1M who contracted the virus 20,000 die, which means the 2% death rate is accurate, not your 100% in the initial phase or the 50% after a few weeks or the 20% a couple of months later, and not even the 3% based on your argument after 6 months.