>> Are the figures not skewed as people get flu jabs hence the overall numbers are
>> artificially reduced? Seems to me it's not comparing like with like.
>>
>> Aside from the fact that percentages really don't have much significance if you get it,
>> I don't really see that a difference of a few percentage points is that significant
>> anyway, especially as the amount of cases the percentages are based on must be vastly
>> different in size. I don't think a few thousand is a very big sample for
>> accurate prediction.
All sorts of holes in the data, not least that the vast majority have not been tested for the disease.
The optics of death rates are interesting in themselves.
Even if the death rate of 3.5% is based on a denominator from which 80% (a wild guess in itself) of the infected people have been omitted because they haven't been tested, that makes the 'real' death rate 0.7%. The death rate for seasonal flu has been quoted as 0.1%.
0.7% sounds considerably worse than 0.1% and it is - 7 times more deaths for the same number infected. But the corresponding survival rates of 99.3% and 99.9% probably sound as close to each other as makes no difference to most people.
|