cytg111
Lifer
- Mar 17, 2008
- 23,986
- 13,508
- 136
Holy. Fuck.
Christ, you have to be a 2 year old if you simply take those numbers and declare the death rate. By doing such, you have declared that the amount of people tested is equal to the total amount of people that have had the virus (either symptomatically or asymptomatically).... and of course, you would have to be mentally retarded to do something that moronic.
Screw that guy
Also, someone trying to teach you something that starts out with "omg these ppl so dumb" is, besides a moron, a douche also an asshole.
Also, if its ~50% with no or mild symptoms why is the green chart *significantly bigger* than the yellow? Then he goes on to say its at least 50% bigger (as in 1.5 times 1.6M?)... at 50% wouldnt they be of equal size? The text he quotes "... could represent some 60% of all infections" (I call it 50, whatever). Either he is getting it wrong is extremely misleading. What a douche.
Anyway around my waterhole its about ~1% has antibodies, 0.2% has been tested positive, of those tested positive there is a ~5% death rate. So the mild to none crowd here is actually 5 times bigger than the tested pool... and lands us at a 1%'er.
Also, antibody numbers from the general populous is a recent tool, we didnt have those to begin with, would you suggest to estimate nothing?