- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: .
Posted on 8/4/20 at 11:01 am to LSUTigersVCURams
Posted on 8/4/20 at 11:01 am to LSUTigersVCURams
The earth is round, revolves around the sun, and has one moon.
0
Posted on 8/4/20 at 11:03 am to buckeye_vol
quote:Even if that is the case, which I am not sure because I just looked up the newest numbers when I made that statement (although this is ongoing and set to change). That descrepancy would be in 60-65 or 55-65 range.
, this actually indicates that it may be even deadlier for those under 65, relative to the flu (which is obviously much less deadly for those younger), than those 65 and over. At the very least, it’s similarly deadlier (again relative to the flu).
A young school age child has a higher chance of being struck by lighting. Essentially if you are under 55(roughly 75% to 80% of americans) the risk of death is statistically very slim and only gets slimmer the younger you skew.
The 75+ age range is considerably inflating the the morbidity of this disease and by considerably I may in makes up the overwhleming majority. The average age of death from this disease (80) is actually higher than the average life expectancy of a person in the US
When you start breaking down these things into age groups you get a better picture of the actual risk to the american population which I believe allows you to make a better risk analysis overall (should we shut down schools, should we close businesses, etc)
The fact that for 75%-80% of americans this is as deadly or less deadly than the flu should help make that analysis. The fact that we are even comparing it to the flu should help make that analysis
Posted on 8/4/20 at 11:14 am to ThePoo
quote:That’s the same for the flu or pretty much any other cause of death until we get to infants where things rise again a bit.
Essentially if you are under 55(roughly 75% to 80% of americans) the risk of death is statistically very slim and only gets slimmer the younger you skew.
Regardless it’s still considerably deadlier than the flu, per infection, regardless of age. It’s just that the flu is so not deadly for those under 65 (e.g., like 1 in 4-6 thousand Infected die from the flu) that when something 5-10 more deadly, is still closer to 1 in 500-1000.
Bit since it’s way more infectious, that can still add up to a lot of deaths as a group for those who aren’t at a very serious risk individually.
quote:That’s not true though. You’re underestimating how not deadly the flu is for those 75-80 percent.
The fact that for 75%-80% of americans this is as deadly or less deadly than the flu should help make that analysis.
This post was edited on 8/4/20 at 11:17 am
Posted on 8/4/20 at 4:33 pm to ThePoo
quote:It amazes me each time I see this statistic used.
The average age of death from this disease (80) is actually higher than the average life expectancy of a person in the US
Please explain to me what "life expectancy" has to do with this.
The relevant statistic is that the life expectancy of an 80 year old in the U.S. is 8.34 years for men and 9.74 years for females.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News