WelcomeUser Guide
ToSPrivacyCanary
DonateBugsLicense

©2025 Poal.co

882

Disclaimer: I do not wish people to suffer from coronavirus or die from it, but at least, the same people who are the most vulnerable have the least to lose.

Let's assume that someone dies at age 91 from coronavirus instead of 94 due to heart failure, missing out on around three years.

What exactly do they miss out on?

Three years of misery, pain, disability and dependence.
Think about it: How is daily life at that age? Not so nice, to put it politely.


Again, I do not wish anyone to die from coronavirus, but maybe it helps some people to know that the elderly people who died from corona virus have not lost much.

If some 16-year-old teen dies from a motorbike accident, he has lost alot. But not the 9X year old who died a few years of misery earlier.

**Disclaimer:** I do **not** wish people to suffer from coronavirus or die from it, but at least, the same people who are the most vulnerable **have the least to lose.** Let's assume that someone dies at age 91 from coronavirus instead of 94 due to heart failure, missing out on around three years. **What exactly** do they miss out on? Three years of misery, pain, disability and dependence. Think about it: How is daily life at that age? Not so nice, to put it politely. ---- Again, I do **not** wish anyone to die from coronavirus, but maybe it helps some people to know that the elderly people who died from corona virus have not lost much. If some 16-year-old teen dies from a motorbike accident, he has lost **alot.** But not the 9X year old who died a few years of misery earlier.

(post is archived)

[–] 0 pt

These numbers are dependent on numbers tested. If you don't get sick enough to seek medical care, you won't get tested and won't count in those numbers. This is the one variable being ignored.

Don't believe the current mortality rate, it is horribly skewed because it is based off people who have been tested positive 2 times.

[–] 0 pt (edited )

Well then chances are numbers are much higher then regarding infection

And the overall rate of death likely remains unchanged

It's 2% death in a "normal" setting on average

Dead people are dead people, they aren't tested twice

https://epidemic-stats.com/

https://pic8.co/sh/mmAjGB.png

[–] 0 pt

If there’s more people sick than tested for, the death rate will be lower. If 100 people are confirmed to be sick with the flu, and 3 of them die, that’s 3% mortality. But if 1000 have the flu (100 confirmed and 900 unconfirmed) the mortality rate becomes 0.3%.

The current mortality rate sounds scary and horrible, but it is a nearly useless number because we don’t know how many are actually sick. We only know how many are tested and confirmed to have it and how many of those died.

[–] 0 pt (edited )

>If there’s more people sick than tested for, the death rate will be lower.

No, this assumption makes no case of reality

You can have people dying from pneumonia for instance, without being identified as in fact dying of pneumonia induced by corona

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/02/infected-coronavirus-200210205212755.html

>"You have mild cases, which look like the common cold, which have some respiratory symptoms, sore throat, runny nose, fever, all the way through pneumonia. And there can be varying levels of severity of pneumonia all the way through multi-organ failure and death," she told reporters in Geneva on February 7.

And the current mortality rate is anything but scary

2 fucking percent, the joke

It's the infection rate that is actually, worrying...