Hey Mike, hope I can help. I’m trying to get my head round your confusion Basically, Erickson says that, because X% of tested patients are positive, then we can reasonably say that the numbers will be the same for the non-tested. By doing this, you can say, “it’s not 10,000 who have had the disease, it’s 1,000,000! And look, the death rate remains the same. Therefore the mortality rate is very low.” The problem being that the number of assumed infections has been hugely inflated, as of course you can’t extrapolate to the general population conclusions based on those getting tested. Those being tested are far more likely to have the disease. So instead of dividing the no. of deaths by a smaller number, you get to make it a huge number and all of a sudden you’ve got a minuscule number of deaths per infected person. Which simply isn’t true. Hope that helps. We all want life to return to normal, and yes, initial estimates for the mortality rate were too high. But we know enough to understand that this is much more deadly than the flu, and caution should be exercised. If you’re still unsure, listen to the repeated talking points that you hear here: – death rates are being exaggerated by doctors for money! (There is no real evidence of this, and it’s just as likely many deaths, particularly those at home or in nursing homes, are being missed) – Bill Gates! (Because why not?) – Mandatory vaccinations! (Because life-saving interventions are now bad) – The economy! (I know, it’s tough, but lives) – pff, 0.5 – 1% is nothing (it’s not) and it’s only the old who die (well, infections can be passed on to the elderly. Also: it’s not) Peace.  

Erickson’s use of statistics was absurd. I dont know how many times this needs to be demonstrated. And close to 1 in a hundred dying after contracting the disease isn’t concerning for you? It’s terrifying. And even the most cursory glance across the globe shows that those who implemented quarantine measures quickly saved thousands of lives. Ridiculous amounts. New Zealand. Czech. Norway. California. Then New York. Italy. UK…. How is the pattern not obvious? It’s night and day stuff. I’ll read about evidence Italy’s numbers are all made up, but I’m guessing any link will probs be Infowars or Breitbart. Until you provide evidence, I’m happy with the official numbers (though contrary to what you think, the chances are they’re underrepresented worldwide)

100 divided by the number of people living in a place multiplied by the people who have died gives you the percentage of people who have died in a given place. I made that ridiculously clear. Ach, I’ve no idea how I can make this any more clear than above. When I said choose one or two people out of a hundred from your FB friends list you’d allow to die, I corrected myself, as I wasn’t really paying attention to the actual numbers when I should have been. But as I demonstrated above, vastly more than 1 in 1000 will die if they contract the virus. Estimates suggest around 15 per cent of people in NY State have had the virus, meaning the actual mortality rate would be around 0.75 in 100, though this could very easily come in at 1 in 100. This is really easy maths. Like, super easy. This number of around 1 in 1000 persists though. And it’s wrong. To be clear: Erickson is flat-out wrong. So are you on this matter.  

I’ve already said 1-2 percent might be high. Your maths is completely off though, much further than my initial approximation (why is this hard?). Let’s dance through this together: Population of NY (state): 20,000,00ish Deaths by Covid: 23,000 and counting 100 ÷ 20,000,000 then multiplied by 23,000 = 0.115. Over 1 in every thousand. And already 5 times higher than your 0.02. Unless you mis-typed and meant 0.2. But given that a) people are still dying and b) the percentage of people who have had it is much lower than 100%  we are looking at a mortality rate that’s probably much closer to 0.5 – 1%. Which sounds small, but is actually terrifying.

I retract “monstrous” and apologise. I think I assumed we were at opposite ends of a spectrum (I do think doing nothing would have been monstrous) but we’re actually closer  pragmatically. Where I live things have been eased, and I am enjoying the walks whilst still distancing. I really don’t think states should consider reopening until they have it under control though, and can’t buy comparisons to the flu (Which you’re not making) Peace.

I have a huge amount of concern for these people. It’s why a strong welfare state and health service is absolutely necessary. My concern is that they don’t die, though. Now I will grant that, yes, we cannot be certain of the precise mortality rate, but NY is at 23,000 and counting. And for your 1-2 in a thousand number to be correct, then everyone will have been infected, which is categorically not true. Far less than half of those *tested* were positive. And these were the more likely to have it. The maths isn’t difficult. Assuming a relatively high 30% have had it, tour mortality rate becomes the stuff of fairy-tales. Realistically, we’re looking at 0.5 – 1%. I have 1000 or so “friends” on Facebook. And though I don’t speak to most of them ever, I also don’t wanna choose the 5 to I0 I’d allow to die. I wish you health, but cannot accept your ideas. A steady well thought-through opening of States when things are under control? Sure. But caution. *edited from original*

He was extrapolating from a massively biased sample. It is in no way accurate.

What are you talking about? Yes, I know, a small percentage of people die. We get that. Everyone gets that. Now, assuming you know 100 or so people, choose the 2 that you’re prepared to allow to die as collateral because economy. What you are arguing for is monstrous.

They’re alive.

I’ve been guilty of a little sarcasm myself so far, so I’m going to listen to your request for understanding, but the salient points in the article still stand strong, and Matt (above, not me) even accepts that Erickson’s use of statistics is absurd. And because this is the *only* argument being put forward, there’s little left to say. We do at some point need to ease restrictions, sure. But the true mortality rate, whilst uncertain, is certainly very high compared to the flu. As has been pointed out ad nauseam, NY’s death rate stands at close to 0.2%. Erickson’s numbers are simply wrong. Like, really wrong. And while it’s true that we might be over-cautious, when life is on the line, that’s not a bad thing. And when the arguments for rushing back to work include anti-vaccine hysteria, Bill Gates and the deep state (I’m not kidding) and a bizarre notion that the government is doing it to control us, well… well you can see how frustrating this is 🙁 Peace 🙂

This has nothing to do with free speech. No one’s right to speak has been shut down. You misunderstand the term. What’s truly hilarious is the idea that private businesses shouldn’t be allowed to choose to take down that which they deem dangerous. Why are you advocating for communism?

As has been established by this article and the comments, whilst the true fatality rate cannot be accurately determined yet, there was a ridiculous abuse of statistics in the video. You cannot take the sample of those tested and apply it to the population at large. The rest of their case then falls like a stack of cards. Look at Italy. Look at Spain. Look at the UK. Look at New York. Then look at New Zealand and Czech and California. This isn’t the flu.

The deep state, man!

How? Honestly.

Private enterprise can do what it wants unless its business model precludes dangerous advice on life-saving measures I guess. Google got something right. Wish Facebook would pay more attention.

Well written article explaining precisely what is wrong with the “it’s only the flu” crew. Unfortunately for you, it seems as though that’s who you’re going to attract. My advice would be, if someone is unwilling to look beyond the exaggeration (the communion wafers analogy) employed to demonstrate the absurd use of statistics in the video (they are being disingenuous – it’s a devastatingly simple idea to grasp), don’t waste too much time fruitlessly engaging every point. Your sanity matters. Peace.