Damned loes and Statistics
1. I never presented that as fact.
2. Dave never presented his 90% in context.
3. They are numbers. How you perceive their interpretation is entirely upto you.
4. It might reasonably be prestented that if the 5% who would otherwise die, 0.45% would survive at 90% efficacy if they had taken the vaccine. (5% x 90% = 0.45%).
And as for the 0.1% being wrong, I think I have covered that.
If you want to include different age ranges and their mortality rates, crack on. By taking the population as a whole you already include them, it just doesn't show the skew one way or tother.
As far as the over (insert age of choice) mortality rates go, of course they are higher than the total population : there are fewer of them and they are already more like to die. This holds more true the further from what ever age you start from... 90+ are fewer in number and more likely to die than 85+, 80+, 70+ etc, etc. That's how life goes.
My overall point was that I would rather have my pathetic pre March 2020 existence than whatever
THIS is supposed to be. Trying to participate here clearly isn't helping, because you're obviously not allowed to express anything beyond the BBC view of the world.
Stemo, I hope SWMBO gets home ok.
Dave, you've nowt to apologise for... They were your take on the information presented
Varche, do you ever consider a positive option?
Johnnydog, if you've summat to say, then just say it.
Albs, I think you may have a point...
