Is this true??

[cambrianexplosion]

Ex just 'informed' me that the NHS statistics for 17th September show that the death rate is 0.2 per 100,000 of the population. Can't find this anywhere.

Is it true??

Fuck sake! 0.2 % of the population or 0.2% of people who were covid positive, who would have caught CV at least 3 weeks before hand when the infection rate was very low. Theres a big bug difference. Also, it's long tail covid you also have to consider.

Sorry, 0.2% per 100,000 rather than population but my point still stands, theres huge difference in how you view those figures

@PJsEveryday

Thanks. So 0.2% of 100,000 of the population have sadly died??

So he's right??

Like you, I'm worried about the virus. He is completely gung ho about it and we keep arguing.

Why are you arguing? He's not going to change his mind, nor you yours.

What is he doing that you feel is gung ho?

Apologies OP. I assumed your were dismissing death from/with Covid because the number is small, for the time being. I'm rattled because the hairdresser yesterday allowed a client to get her hair done even though she was aggressive saying it's all a hoax.

But such statistics are pointless without context - each year a certain % of the population dies (and equally babies are born). The important number as far as how deadly coronavirus is is how many excess deaths it has caused this year, that is over and above the people who were likely to die of respiratory illnesses, flu etc due to underlying comorbidities.

BBC Radio 4 More or Less is very good for explaining this.

[quote cambrianexplosion]@PJsEveryday

Thanks. So 0.2% of 100,000 of the population have sadly died??

So he's right??

Like you, I'm worried about the virus. He is completely gung ho about it and we keep arguing.[/quote]
Sorry to be blunt but I suspect neither of you actually understand enough about to statistics to even be arguing about it. Putting aside for a minute the accuracy of the figures you're quoting, they are meaningless as you present them. e.g. is that 0.2% per 100k an absolute figure, per day, per month or what? It's also a flawed way of presenting statistics. You could say 0.2 people per 100k or you could say 0.2% of the population but 0.2% per 100k is nonsensical. That's one of the many problems with this current crisis. People who struggled with basic maths in school suddenly think they're qualified to express what they believe are informed opinions.

@TooTrueToBeGood
Ouch!! You are right though, I don't understand enough about statistics. That's why I asked.

He watches YouTube videos then presents whatever the person on the video claims as facts. There's no way he reads statistics or scientific papers or anything like that. I read them and try to get the jist of them.

I was asking because if I could send him proof that the 'statistics' from his YouTube videos are wrong, then I might be able to get him to take things more seriously.

He is one of those who believe that viruses don't exist they are exosomes, and that it's either fake or it is just a flu.

I don't actually think that deep down he believes it's fake, I think he is latching on to these videos because his mum is extremely clinically vulnerable previously shielding and he himself has risk factors.