Support NeoGAF

[MisterFalcon]

There are something like 1,5 to 2 billion people in the poorer parts of the world whose births and deaths are not registered with any authorities. They will never get a test, go to a hospital or get any kind of registration of their cause of death.
Most countries will not make any efforts to go find out through interviewing people in these poor areas on how many family members they lost to get a better estimate, they will stick with the numbers they have on the upper class of the population who can afford tests and will have a registered cause of death.

 

[Rentahamster]

Did I miss something? COVID has killed about 4.4 million people worldwide. How did it kill 5M in India alone?

Yes, you missed the study I cited that estimated the collateral damage and the degree of undercounting that went on in India.

But even if you ignore the collateral damage, the official death toll is still too damn high, and the result of letting the virus run wild in a population of over a billion petri dishes was the evolution of the delta variant.

Not. Worth. It.

 

[FireFly]

I'm not the one advocating for mass censorship.

I don't see how advocating for more control of the information you see counts as mass censorship. Surely censorship is restricting individuals' access to information? For example by using algorithms to selectively provide content to individuals to make them believe *any* theory that keeps them glued to their screens.

Covid doesn't really kill many people. 99.7% survival.

0.3% is not a small number of people to die. Applied to the US population as whole, it would mean nearly 1M deaths. Here are 3 ways to look at it:

1.) If each person knows around 100 other people in their extended network, then you are talking about a situation where on average ~1/3 of the people in your network would know of someone who had died from COVID.
2.) Imagine a natural disaster killed the entire population of San Francisco. That would be the scale of the tragedy.
3.) A a year of life, measured by people's willingness to pay for life-extending insurance policies, is estimated to be worth about $50,000 (https://conversableeconomist.blogspot.com/2018/06/whats-value-of-qaly.html). So, if the approximately 1 million people who died, on average only lost 10 years of life, then that would be a loss of $500 trillion.

 

[Bernd Lauert]

What a dangerous way of thinking.

Dangerous to whom? The xeen apparently works very well, so go get it and I basically can't spread my infection to you. Problem solved.

 

[FunkMiller]

I feel like this thread just gets worse as time goes on. Catching up on the last few pages has just been nuts.

The thread is now more or less full of two types of people:

1. Those who believe Covid is a very serious pandemic and that vaccines are our best and only real to way to tackle it. And they (we) get frustrated when others can’t see this.

2. People who are anti-vax, or sympathetic to anti-vax opinion, but know they can’t be explicit or honest about it because they’ll eat a ban.

Therefore, there’s a lot of pointless arguing around the subject, and obfuscating of opinion.

 

[JumpMan1981]

How is any of this weird? From all over the world you get testimonies of young people being admitted into the ICU - people in their 20s and 30s.
Yes, the risk of being hospitalised is lower but high infection rate = more infections = more hospital admissions.
Let me use some math:
1 million old people contaminated x 10% hospitalisation rate = 100 000 hospitalisations
10 million young people contaminated x 1% hospitalisation rate = 100 000 hospitalisations

The end result is the same, you just need a larger sample and Delta takes care of that.

Young people can develop severe illness as a result of Covid.
Young people can die to Covid.
Vaccines practically prevent severe illnesses in young people.
Get vaccinated.

What's with the aggression?
"Get vaccinated." Already did, thanks.

The truth is I am perfectly relaxed about people who don't want to get vaccinated because I believe it should be the choice of the individual.

I don't agree with people who are actively convincing others to not get vaccinated because the vaccine contains a mind control chip or whatever but equally I am a bit suspicious of people who are just a bit too aggressive with how they want everyone to be vaccinated.

Some people need to dial it back a bit.

I never said that young people are invulnerable. I said that the chances of them having a severe illness or death from covid is very small and so I would not be overly concerned about it. If they want to travel comfortably here and go to some events etc then they might as well get vaccinated. If they don't want to then fine. That's their choice.

Were you like this before the pandemic? Like if you were at the beach and you saw some guy out in the water in one of those silly inflatables would you be running along the shore roaring that it's not safe and people die every year in the oceans and seas and what about the lifeguards who might need to rescue them, they are all at risk too!!? Would you?

I don't think there is ever going to be a strict mandatory vaccination thing so it seems a bit pointless to get so riled up over people who just won't bother getting it. There are always going to be people who don't go along with what we would prefer them to do but in my experience, before all of this, we were mostly fine with it. People who break the law are of course expected to be punished and it's not uncommon to read about some dreadful tragedy caused by reckless people. That's just the way the world is.

This weirdo control freak thing also seems to be something largely confined to the internet. Mostly around here people are wearing masks but when we see someone come into a place not wearing one we don't all freak out. Guy opposite me on my flight last week was not wearing a mask and I didn't feel some inherent need to flip out and berate him. Nor did anybody else. Probably because we are all vaccinated and anyone that isn't knows the risk they are taking by now.

Some people need to just take a step back from all this. Do what you can to protect yourself and your own family. Get vaccinated if you want to. If you don't then that's fine. It's a personal choice. No need for the aggression.

At the end of the day catching Covid isn't automatically a death sentence. The chances of recovery are pretty good. Some people will not be so lucky but that's life.

 

[JumpMan1981]

There are something like 1,5 to 2 billion people in the poorer parts of the world whose births and deaths are not registered with any authorities. They will never get a test, go to a hospital or get any kind of registration of their cause of death.
Most countries will not make any efforts to go find out through interviewing people in these poor areas on how many family members they lost to get a better estimate, they will stick with the numbers they have on the upper class of the population who can afford tests and will have a registered cause of death.

This is definitely something worth paying attention to.
I think many of us in western countries do not understand the situation in places like India.
The reporting is almost certain to be inaccurate and the numbers of cases and deaths will almost certainly be under-reported.
It'll be way higher.

Sure, even in Europe our cases will be massively under-reported because of the number of asymptomatic cases.
Plenty of people will have had this and never ever bothered to get tested because they never had symptoms.
When things started off here we were told that something like 80% of cases would have very mild or even no symptoms.
That's a lot of unreported cases, in my opinion.

 

[Razorback]

Dangerous to whom? The xeen apparently works very well, so go get it and I basically can't spread my infection to you. Problem solved.

You said there's no expert that could ever change your mind on the subject. This makes you a zealot.
Zealotry is dangerous for society.

And the way you phrased that comes across to me as if you think everyone is just looking out for themselves.

 

[JumpMan1981]

I don't see how advocating for more control of the information you see counts as mass censorship. Surely censorship is restricting individuals' access to information? For example by using algorithms to selectively provide content to individuals to make them believe *any* theory that keeps them glued to their screens.


0.3% is not a small number of people to die. Applied to the US population as whole, it would mean nearly 1M deaths. Here are 3 ways to look at it:

1.) If each person knows around 100 other people in their extended network, then you are talking about a situation where on average ~1/3 of the people in your network would know of someone who had died from COVID.
2.) Imagine a natural disaster killed the entire population of San Francisco. That would be the scale of the tragedy.
3.) A a year of life, measured by people's willingness to pay for life-extending insurance policies, is estimated to be worth about $50,000 (https://conversableeconomist.blogspot.com/2018/06/whats-value-of-qaly.html). So, if the approximately 1 million people who died, on average only lost 10 years of life, then that would be a loss of $500 trillion.

The problem with Covid is that the stats are different for different age groups.

The life expectancy in Belgium is around 82.

The covid deaths by age breakdown is given here:
• Belgium: COVID-19 deaths, by age 2021 | Statista

Around 50% of the deaths are 85 and older. This is beyond the average life expectancy.
This also affects the way we should look at the risk for young people.

A further almost 30% of the total deaths are in the 75 to 84 range.

Under 44 people are relatively safe.
Under 24 even safer.

Realistically if you vaccinated everyone over the age of 75 then you've saved a really significant number of lives and have reduced the possibility of future deaths significantly too.

There wouldn't really be a need to aggressively go after the under 24s and really should just make it a choice for them to vaccinate or not.

 

[Bernd Lauert]

You said there's no expert that could ever change your mind on the subject. This makes you a zealot.
Zealotry is dangerous for society.

And the way you phrased that comes across to me as if you think everyone is just looking out for themselves.

I meant currently. Things can obviously change (the Andromeda variant might have ebola tier deadliness or something). And while I did my risk assessement mostly for myself, I also thought about the chances of infecting others. They're incredibly low, since most people got the xeen.

 

[FireFly]

Realistically if you vaccinated everyone over the age of 75 then you've saved a really significant number of lives and have reduced the possibility of future deaths significantly too.

There wouldn't really be a need to aggressively go after the under 24s and really should just make it a choice for them to vaccinate or not.

Sure. My point of comparison was with doing nothing and letting the virus run its course.

Obviously once you have vaccinated the vulnerable population, the virus becomes a lot less deadly. Though given that the vaccine is expected to reduce deaths in all adult age groups, it still makes sense to try to encourage as high a take-up as possible.

 

[Chankoras]

WHO chief inspector says 'likely' patient zero was Wuhan lab researcher​

https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/4269374

Hypothesis that patient 0 was researcher working with bats, while doing so, a zoonotic transmission occurred.

 

[BadBurger]

I'm not sure where to go from here. Every scientist and medical professional (and even just casual observers who knew to trust science) predicted exactly what would happen in southern states: thousands of new cases a day again, children and young adults now being affected and dying, the likelihood of a vaccine-resistant variant arising daily thanks to non-science types not doing as simple as getting a vaccine shot, medical networks being overwhelmed by the unvaccinated, etc.

And it happened. Because science is science. It was inevitable.

And we still have morons downplaying it all over including within this thread. What will it take for these fucking morons to accept simple science and history? What? How are they still going?

 

[MilkyJoe]

Exactly!

Science is great.
Vaccines are great.

Covid doesn't really kill many people. 99.7% survival.

So why are we collectively running around like we're on fire?

We shouldn't be arguing about who takes a medical procedure or not, vaccine passports (WTF! .. truly ... why? I need papers to prove I'm vaccinated to go to a bar? In the black death maybe ... but 99.7%?) or not.

If 99.7% is enough, we need to stop driving, eating MCD, using alcohol, paragliding, rollerblading, boating with clouds, etc. 1:107 chance of dying while driving..... hello.

I'm convinced this is the Big Gulp NYC policy run amok.

Cases ran rampant for a year, a true psycho-freakout for a year, and collective 2020 death is DOWN statistically. Easiest "pandemic" ever. Again: cases ran rampant.

The real doom? The economic effects of this freak-out. Prepare yourself LOL

The survival is far greater than 99.7%

this Oxford Uni calculator will give your life expectancy

Licence | QCovid™ risk calculator

qcovid.org

Mine is ;

COVID associated death

0.0028%

1 in 35714

 

[Max_Po]

is this Biden ?

 

[Cyberpunkd]

The truth is I am perfectly relaxed about people who don't want to get vaccinated because I believe it should be the choice of the individual.

It is not a choice of that individual when their choice affects others. Freedom is not an absolute, your freedom ends where mine begins. People have the freedom of not being subjected to lockdowns all the time because the healthcare system is not holding because people are admitted and 80-90% are not vaccinated.

Your beach example is pointless - I don’t care it somebody dies due to their own stupidity, it doesn’t effect me. Covid does, even though I am myself vaccinated already.

 

[funkygunther]

The survival is far greater than 99.7%

this Oxford Uni calculator will give your life expectancy

Licence | QCovid™ risk calculator

qcovid.org

Mine is ;

COVID associated death

0.0028%

1 in 35714

now try an overweight old person with diabetes or heart/lung conditions, this (let's call it) research you performed that gives you the conclusion "survival is far greater than 99.7%" is a joke so I'm replying to you in case people are trying to take your point seriously

 

[ArgleBargleFooferah]

Freedom is not an absolute, your freedom ends where mine begins.

This is just entitlement.

 

[sinnergy]

is this Biden ?

Could be in the next DIE HARD

 

[sinnergy]

WHO chief inspector says 'likely' patient zero was Wuhan lab researcher​

https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/4269374

Hypothesis that patient 0 was researcher working with bats, while doing so, a zoonotic transmission occurred.

It’s a soap

 

[MilkyJoe]

now try an overweight old person with diabetes or heart/lung conditions, this (let's call it) research you performed that gives you the conclusion "survival is far greater than 99.7%" is a joke so I'm replying to you in case people are trying to take your point seriously

The default state of being is being is not an elderly, overweight person with heart/lung conditions and diabetes, you dripping rantallion.

But just to be a sport - 70 year old with a heart condition and diabetes, there's your 99.7%

COVID associated death

0.3589%

1 in 279

It is not a choice of that individual when their choice affects others. Freedom is not an absolute, your freedom ends where mine begins. People have the freedom of not being subjected to lockdowns all the time because the healthcare system is not holding because people are admitted and 80-90% are not vaccinated.

Your beach example is pointless - I don’t care it somebody dies due to their own stupidity, it doesn’t effect me. Covid does, even though I am myself vaccinated already.

State of this one

I'm afraid his freedom is set in stone regardless of how much of a coward you are,

Exhibit A

 

[Ellery]

I'm not sure where to go from here. Every scientist and medical professional (and even just casual observers who knew to trust science) predicted exactly what would happen in southern states: thousands of new cases a day again, children and young adults now being affected and dying, the likelihood of a vaccine-resistant variant arising daily thanks to non-science types not doing as simple as getting a vaccine shot, medical networks being overwhelmed by the unvaccinated, etc.

And it happened. Because science is science. It was inevitable.

And we still have morons downplaying it all over including within this thread. What will it take for these fucking morons to accept simple science and history? What? How are they still going?

It takes intelligence to question if your stance on something could be actually wrong. The deeper someone is entangled in confirmation bias the more they cling to further dismissing reason and reality.

They also just want to be finally right about something, to finally know something that smart people don't. They can't understand that being educated, smart and working towards something in a scientific way is not about having an opinion. It is about looking for the answer and constantly changing your view based on evidence. Those morons can only think in opinions and right and wrong. It is the same people that think freedom means they can do whatever they want whenever they want.

And now those people are occupying important hospital beds. Straight from right wing facebook groups distrusting the fake media and being brainwashed into hyperpolarization to the death bed regretting not taking the vaccine.

 

[FireFly]

The survival is far greater than 99.7%

this Oxford Uni calculator will give your life expectancy

Licence | QCovid™ risk calculator

qcovid.org

Mine is ;

COVID associated death

0.0028%

1 in 35714

That calculator shows your individual risk, not the expected number of casualties over an entire population. It also seems like it calculates the combined risk of catching and dying from the virus (during the first wave), not the risk that you will die, given that you are infected.

We already have countries where close to 0.3% of the population have died:

COVID-19 deaths per capita by country | Statista

COVID deaths worldwide were highest in Peru, topping a list that compares deaths per million in 210 countries worldwide.

www.statista.com

 

[funkygunther]

The default state of being is being is not an elderly, overweight person with heart/lung conditions and diabetes, you dripping rantallion.

But just to be a sport - 70 year old with a heart condition and diabetes, there's your 99.7%

COVID associated death

0.3589%

1 in 279

my point wasn’t for you to literally roleplay as someone else but that your deduction of fatality rate based on your method is hilariously stupid

 

[Bernd Lauert]

The survival is far greater than 99.7%

this Oxford Uni calculator will give your life expectancy

Licence | QCovid™ risk calculator

qcovid.org

Mine is ;

COVID associated death

0.0028%

1 in 35714

This is me:

Granted, this is based on pre-Delta data, but still.

 

[MilkyJoe]

That calcuator shows your individual risk, not the expected number of casualities over an entire population. It also seems like it calculates the combined risk of catching and dying from the virus (during the first wave), not the risk that you will die, given that you are infected.

We already have countries where close to 0.3% of the population have died:

COVID-19 deaths per capita by country | Statista

COVID deaths worldwide were highest in Peru, topping a list that compares deaths per million in 210 countries worldwide.

www.statista.com

He said 99.7% survival, not 99.7% survived.

my point wasn’t for you to literally roleplay as someone else but that your deduction of fatality rate based on your method is hilariously stupid

what? Fatality rate which differs vastly between age and gender groups, is it better to give an average or worse case rather than break it down to a more realistic number depending on individual circumstance?

 

[funkygunther]

He said 99.7% survival, not 99.7% survived.



what? Fatality rate which differs vastly between age and gender groups, is better to give an average or worse case rather than break it down to a more realistic number depending on individual circumstance?

great, what’s the more realistic number then?

 

[MilkyJoe]

great, what’s the more realistic number then?

I missed out the "it" in the question

is IT better to give an average or worse case rather than break it down to a more realistic number depending on individual circumstance?

 

[FireFly]

He said 99.7% survival, not 99.7% survived.

It means the same thing, if we are talking about the average risk across the population as a whole. In other words, knowing only that I am a person and I am infected with COVID, what are my chances of dying?

Obviously the more information you have, the more your personal risk will change, until the point where you know *everything* relevant, and your risk is either 1 or 0.

 

[funkygunther]

I missed out the "it" in the question

is IT better to give an average or worse case rather than break it down to a more realistic number depending on individual circumstance?

yes and I’m asking for the realistic number if it’s ”far greater than 99.7%”

 

[MilkyJoe]

It means the same thing, if we are talking about the average risk across the population as a whole. In other words, knowing only that I am a person and I am infected with COVID, what are my chances of dying?

Obviously the more information you have, the more your personal risk will change, until the point where you know *everything* relevant, and your risk is either 1 or 0.

It doesn't mean the same thing. you wouldn't tell an 18 year old that he has a 3:1000 chance of dying when his actual chance is >1:1000,000

 

[MilkyJoe]

yes and I’m asking for the realistic number if it’s ”far greater than 99.7%”

Run yourself through the calculator. You'll get an average for your age/gender/weight and health circumstance.

 

[Bernd Lauert]

great, what’s the more realistic number then?

If you're young and healthy, there's a higher chance you die in a car accident. Like way higher.

 

[funkygunther]

Run yourself through the calculator. You'll get an average for your age/gender/weight and health circumstance.

that didn’t answer my question but it’s fine, I know your answer already is “i don’t know” because you‘re saying some people‘s are greater than the survival rate, not that the survival rate is greater…you said something stupid and are now arguing something else

to answer your question then, it depends what the (now we have decided these are apples/oranges) numbers is being used for, and we have cohorts based on risk already where people with a rate greater than the average get treated, vaccined, cared for differently to others…we do break it down already, and that’s different to the purpose of quoting a 99.7% survival rate

 

[FireFly]

It doesn't mean the same thing. you wouldn't tell an 18 year old that he has a 3:1000 chance of dying when his actual chance is >1:1000,000

Did you read what I said? I said, it means the same thing, if we are talking about the average risk across the population as a whole.

The topic is not, what is the risk to an 18 year old. The topic is what is the risk to society as a whole. So that's the risk to 18 year olds and 19 year olds and 50 year olds and 80 year olds and 90 year olds. We combine all of these together to get an average risk, which gives us a way of deciding how serious the collective threat is.

(And if we want to to know the survival rate, we should use a calculator that tells us the risk of dying given that we are infected, not the combined risk of catching and dying from the virus over a 90 day period)

 

[DeepBreath87]

Question: why has the whole "Delta is as contagious as chickenpox!" thing been unquestioningly adopted when it was based on a very limited data set under very specific conditions? Has anyone else done any real studies on the R0 of Delta? I find it slightly incredulous that it jumped from an R0 of like 1.7-2.0 to 6.5-7.0.



Did I miss something? COVID has killed about 4.4 million people worldwide. How did it kill 5M in India alone?

Also, there are a lot of alarming (and possibly alarmist) post/tweets/videos on the last few pages about the ravages of Delta, how it's killing younger people etc. When can we expect this to be aggregated and reflected in official CDC or state data? Would be nice to see a breakdown of the number of new cases, hospitalizations, and deaths broken down by age bracket to accurately gauge the impact. But clearly presented data seems to be impossible to find these months, in the US at least.

We don’t need data. We have anecdotes. A pediatric hospital got full somewhere in Texas! A 17 year old is in the ICU. A baby was intubated for a few days. Who needs data when you have isolated stories?

 

[ManaByte]

COVID case rate among unvaccinated Californians is 6 times that of the inoculated

The chasm in coronavirus case rates between unvaccinated and vaccinated Californians is continuing to widen, state data show, as some officials move more aggressively to require the shots as a prec…

ktla.com

 

[FunkMiller]

I meant currently. Things can obviously change (the Andromeda variant might have ebola tier deadliness or something). And while I did my risk assessement mostly for myself, I also thought about the chances of infecting others. They're incredibly low, since most people got the xeen.

Has it occurred to you that by not getting vaccinated now, you could be contributing to the continuing mutation of the virus, which could result in that Andromeda strain that does kill you? Not that this is likely, just trying to understand the mindset of 'wait and see' when there's no real point or practical purpose to it.

 

[Cyberpunkd]

I'm afraid his freedom is set in stone regardless of how much of a coward you are,

Exhibit A

I don’t understand where are you going with it - he has every right not to get vaccinated. But he has to face consequences of his actions i.e. not having the same liberties as people vaccinated given current sanitary context. Once again - going out to a restaurant or cinema is not a right.

 

[MilkyJoe]

Did you read what I said? I said, it means the same thing, if we are talking about the average risk across the population as a whole.

Population of the world? That'll bring you to 99.95. UK - 99.93 - US 99.91 - Japan 99.99

that didn’t answer my question but it’s fine, I know your answer already is “i don’t know” because you‘re saying some people‘s are greater than the survival rate, not that the survival rate is greater…you said something stupid and are now arguing something else

Of course I don't know, because the variables on that calculator are immeasurable to a man with a pen and a calculator, but based on the above, they are not 99.7

 

[QSD]

I'm not sure where to go from here. Every scientist and medical professional (and even just casual observers who knew to trust science) predicted exactly what would happen in southern states: thousands of new cases a day again, children and young adults now being affected and dying, the likelihood of a vaccine-resistant variant arising daily thanks to non-science types not doing as simple as getting a vaccine shot, medical networks being overwhelmed by the unvaccinated, etc.

And it happened. Because science is science. It was inevitable.

And we still have morons downplaying it all over including within this thread. What will it take for these fucking morons to accept simple science and history? What? How are they still going?

Science also predicts that if you call people morons, the chances they will cooperate with whatever plan you are proposing are greatly reduced. Will you continue to ignore the science?

 

[funkygunther]

Population of the world? That'll bring you to 99.95. UK - 99.93 - US 99.91 - Japan 99.99


Of course I don't know, because the variables on that calculator are immeasurable to a man with a pen and a calculator, but based on the above, they are not 99.7

Here you again, well if you insist then based on your sample of 3 it’s not 99.7% so what is it?

 

[MilkyJoe]

I don’t understand where are you going with it - he has every right not to get vaccinated. But he has to face consequences of his actions i.e. not having the same liberties as people vaccinated given current sanitary context. Once again - going out to a restaurant or cinema is not a right.

What does the last line say?

 

[MilkyJoe]

Here you again, well if you insist then based on your sample of 3 it’s not 99.7% so what is it?

Those are 3 i pulled out of my arse, and the entire population of the world to boot!! What more do you want than the entire population of the chuffing world ?

 

[Kilau]

COVID case rate among unvaccinated Californians is 6 times that of the inoculated

The chasm in coronavirus case rates between unvaccinated and vaccinated Californians is continuing to widen, state data show, as some officials move more aggressively to require the shots as a prec…

ktla.com

Can’t be, I keep seeing people post the rates are higher if vaccinated /s

 

[FireFly]

Population of the world? That'll bring you to 99.95. UK - 99.93 - US 99.91 - Japan 99.99

No, the population of a given country, where we're considering simply letting the virus run loose.

And I managed to find a real survival rate calculator:

See how age and illnesses change the risk of dying from covid-19

Our risk model estimates chances of death and hospitalisation based on age, sex and comorbidities

www.economist.com

Notice how at only 45 for a man and 52 for a woman, the risk of death hits 0.3%, and then jumps sharply upwards

 

[funkygunther]

Those are 3 i pulled out of my arse, and the entire population of the world to boot!! What more do you want than the entire population of the chuffing world ?

that’s what you want when you say “it’s greater than…” without having any idea what the “it” is, it’s applied to a society and is the most simple number used when wanting to make a point, either in the negative (would you sacrifice x population for this virus) or the positive (it’s such a small risk its not worth doing anything with the virus) but what its not used for is for a blanket rate applied to each individual

 

[MilkyJoe]

No, the population of a given country, where we're considering simply letting the virus run loose.

And I managed to find a real survival rate calculator:

See how age and illnesses change the risk of dying from covid-19

Our risk model estimates chances of death and hospitalisation based on age, sex and comorbidities

www.economist.com

Notice how at only 45 for a man and 52 for a woman, the risk of death hits 0.3%, and then jumps sharply upwards

I wouldn't call that sharply up by any stretch of the imagination, and to be fair, that is for Americans, and you are a pack of elephants.

that’s what you want when you say “it’s greater than…” without having any idea what the “it” is, it’s applied to a society and is the most simple number used when wanting to make a point, either in the negative (would you sacrifice x population for this virus) or the positive (it’s such a small risk its not worth doing anything with the virus) but what its not used for is for a blanket rate applied to each individual

Are you drinking?

 

[funkygunther]

I wouldn't call that sharply up by any stretch of the imagination, and to be fair, that is for Americans, and you are a pack of elephants.



Are you drinking?

right so now all you have is arguing over definitions of the relative "sharply" and wondering if i'm drinking?

get tae fuck

 

[FireFly]

I wouldn't call that sharply up by any stretch of the imagination, and to be fair, that is for Americans, and you are a pack of elephants.

From the age of 50 to 80 there is a 30x increase in risk for men and a 36x increase for women.