WHO says coronavirus death rate is 3.4% globally, higher than previously thought

People with BMI over 30 (the medical classification of obesity) by themselves are 40% of the adult population.

Unlike what you imagine, the game being played with these stats is in the opposite direction than the one you suggest. Yes, having compromised health, does make you a lot more susceptible to dying from the virus. That is true of any other disease or ailment. But the correlation between any of these "preconditions" and developing full blown Covid-19 and getting seriously ill is questionable at best. For instance, unless you have more than 40% of people getting seriously ill from Covid-19 also being obese (BMI over 30), there is really no statistical correlation between the two! Just because say 40% of the Covid-19 hospitalizations are "obese people" would NOT be proof of a correlation between obesity and Covid-19 hospitalization. That would be the same number from the general population. Then you add all these other 'pre-conditions' with little correlation (including being ex-smokers at greater danger than smokers) and you end up with stats that simply mislead people.

Again, the main precursor for people (other than those seriously ill or very old) is most likely the level of exposure to the virus, at least based on what I have gathered from the cases being reported. Naturally, if for whatever reason, you aren't in 'tip top' shape and have health issues, that makes your prognosis worse. But that is true of all diseases not just Covid-19.

 

It's a logarithmic scale chart. The linear growth chart is much harder to view a breaking of the exponential curve.

This is the linear version.


This is the logarithmic version.



Like I said, it is much easier to see the curve flattening in the 2nd chart.

 

It's sad that you have to explain this to Trump fans, isn't it?

 

E

Your first chart went from 10k to 1 million on the Y axis .. this new chart lays it out better

 

The first logarithmic chart and the 2nd had two different Y Axis...

Pretty sad you did not notice this...

Egg on your face Mr Scientist?


Aka you post a chart with a Y Axis jump of 10k to 1 million ( post 327)

MrTlegal comes to your defense but with a different chart hoping i would not notice.( post 352)

Funny ****.. Maybe next time eh?

 

~ On the internet everyone is an "expert" .

PS : The W.H.O. should be retitled WHAT.

 

It's the same data in both graphs. The first graph, which I posted, has the y-axis scale skipping an order of magnitude between axis labels, that's all.

Now, if you could show that the data is different in the two graphs, you'd had a point, but it is not.

So, before you accuse someone of having egg on their face, do your own homework first. It occurs to me that you don't know that scientists use logarithmic axes to indicate exponential relationships, because exponential growth becomes linear on a log scale. However, to cover this up, you deflect to some minor differences between axis labeling, which has ZERO bearing on the data and the points made by these graphs.

 

LOL! And some are proud to be non-experts. Guess who those vote for?

 

The data is fine its how its displayed that matters.

Cover up? Minor Differences?? Keep trying to spin this.

I could give two shits what "occurs" to you in your need to smear.

 

BTW the reason why I put ignorami on ignore is because it is a complete waste of my time trying to explain things that they will never grasp.

Happy Easter!

 

LOL, so true. Happy Easter to you too!

 

There is information of value in the tragic death statistics that is not being communicated to the American and global public. More information is better. Obesity by itself is most likely not a stand alone precondition. But in combination with pre and full diabetes may be, as suggested by Dr. Smith's small sample, result in greater risk. The value is giving people the most possible information about the risk that they are under so that they can mitigate those risks as required.

For example a person who is pre diabetic with a BMI over 30 might decide to take a chance and go to the grocery store thinking they were on the short end of the risk pool. That's the way people think. The data breakdown would tell them that they are at great risk and should definitely stay home.

BTW, in the federal guidelines the at risk BMI is > 40. Dr. Smith's data shows the BMI > 30 is a contributing factor.

 

You said this much nicer than I would have.

 

Left still trying to sell the social distancing and shutting down the country saved millions BS I see.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost...-travel-at-least-13-feet-new-study-shows/amp/

Well looks like maybe not so much the 6 foot part..

The over hyping of this virus becomes more clearly daily.

 

Do you think the concentration of aerosols drops magically to 0 at 6 feet from an infected person? At 13 feet? Do you think that people measure their distance to each other as exactly 6 feet, or try to stay further apart?

Hint, the concentration of the virus around a person decreases (in very simplified fashion) with the cube of the distance. That means the likelihood to have high enough concentration (we don't know what that conc is) for infection decreases dramatically as the distance increases. That doesn't mean you can't get infected when you are 20 feet away and the wind blows a high concentration of virus particles your way. It's a matter of probabilities. None of your ramblings disprove that social distancing doesn't work.

 

Blah blah blah..

“Social distancing saved us all, only reason we do not have millions dead! Was the most recent dribble from the left around here after their doom and gloom predictions (some of which you supported) are being shown to have been way way over inflated.

Turns out we were not even social distancing 50% correctly so it was not the reason we do not have millions dead. The reason in reality is that this was over hyped from day one.

At some point the left will run out of reasons to explain why millions did not die and will just have to fess up they were very wrong about this virus. Guess you are not at that point just yet...

 

They lay out the exact same information, but are used to help explain exponential relationships. Worldofmeters literally gives you the option to select which you'd like to use for viewing the same information (the raw case count over time).





That's literally all that I did to "come to his defense." His use of the logarithmic graph is much smarter for expressing the point that he wanted to make (i.e. that social distancing and other epidemic control measures are flattening the exponential curve).

It will, eventually, also flatten the linear curve as well.

 

Dude...you realize that the "social distancing and shutting down the country saved the millions BS" is explicitly being pushed and championed by Donald Trump as well, right?

Why the **** do you think that messaging is coming solely from "the left?"

 

You still dont get it.... You and the other guy used different logarithmic charts using the same data.. Two different Y axis labels.

I am well aware you have both been using linear and logarithmic charts that is NOT what i am speaking about?

What the hell is wrong with this forum these days? Read what i write instead of thinking the other side is stupid and ignoring posts.. Your chart is far more accurate then the one he first posted.

 

All pandemic curves decelerate.

Would you like to talk about first and second derivatives of the curve too?

For shits and giggles, integrate the area under the curve for a spike and a prolonged, flattened curve.
Tell us about the many more deaths you cause

 

It is literally the same chart with one drawn to a linear scale and the other drawn to a logarithmic scale.

But whatever, think they are different if you must.

 

~ Time for an aspirin ...

 

No it "literally" is not i dont think you know what a Y axis is its the only explanation..
Going from 10k to 1 million on an axis is not incremental at all.. What is this.. The seventh time i have tried to explain this to you?

 

Correct, it is not incremental. IT IS LOGARITHMIC.

 

Then it was still missing 100,000 on the Y axis.