Coronavirus: How scared should we be?

[oldhippydude]

The 1 in a thousand risk of dieing covers a multitude of things adding one more doesn't double your chances
Its more like 1 in 999

from the linked bbc article

"For example, an average person aged 40 has around a one-in-1,000 risk of not making it to their next birthday and an almost identical risk of not surviving a coronavirus infection. That means your risk of dying is effectively doubled from what it was if you are infected."

So they are saying that if you are infected then your chance of dying is double what it would otherwise be.
So not quite as simple as 1+1 because we are not all going to be infected.

 

[Mawsley]

No it's not, but I don't think assessing the risks and taking your chances is necessarily being blase about it? I chose to take chances and ride mad horses, you choose to ride a motorcycle. We're both well aware of the risks but (I'm assuming) feel the benefits outweigh them and try to do it in as safe a way as possible?

I'm acknowledging the post but not contributing to this thread further

 

[MHL]

Despite the risk not being equally distributed, and the possibility of passing it on to other vulnerable people... just because it won't kill me, it doesn't mean I fancy getting it.

My mate's brother and his wife both had it (both early 30s, very healthy). Each of them was in hospital for a couple of weeks, he got pneumonia too. I've spoken to other folk who've had it too. None dead yet, but all of them said it was utterly grim.

 

[harumph]

This 1 in a thousand is made up of lot of other things that have their own odds
Some of them are 1 in 50 some 1 in 500 some 1 in 1000 some 1 in 500000
Throwing in 1 more 1 in a thousand doesn't double your overall chances

you do not understand maths,probability or fractions. so lets break it down very simply 1/1000 and 1/1000 chance is the same as 1/2 to 1/2
if i have a chance of a coin landing heads is 1/2 and I can only win on heads it's 1/2
now there's also the a chance of a coin landing tails is 1/2
except now I win if it lands heads or tails. so my chance is 2/2. the odds have doubled in likelihood.

you can apply the same with a dice wherein your chance of landing a specific number is 1/6 and then you're allowed to choose a second number, it becomes 2/6.

the same applies with different numbers such as 1/1000.

yes there are multiple chances of different deaths within that 1/1000, your chance of ALL of those combined is 1/1000.
now, you have an added risk of coronavirus causing your death which is a 1/1000 chance. not a 1/1000 option out of the 1000 from all deaths, an ADDED risk which is equal. it's not WITHIN the original 1/1000, it's ON TOP OF.
your chances are now 2/1000. it's ADDED, it's not added within the 1/1000, it's added on top of it. Why isn't it within? BECAUSE IT WAS NEVER A FACTOR WHEN THAT PROBABILITY WAS CALCULATED If my chances of beating Mike Tyson in a fight are 1/1000 and then we give Mike Tyson body armor and a machete, my chances don't stay the same.. There is no other way to come at this mathematically. you are simply and completely wrong. Email a maths teacher or a statistician if you think you're right and you can get them to post proof. The laws of mathematics are the same everywhere.

I cannot more strongly state you are wrong. If you don't understand this explanation, it'll be because you don't want it to be true, not because it isn't true. numbers don't care about how you feel.
******
I've just read oldhippydudes post and it changes nothing but the numbers if correct, if the number for chances of infection is different and it's say 1/10000 to be infected and die from it. it'll still be ADDED on top of to create the overall risk. The process remains the same.

 

[Crewella]

I'm acknowledging the post but not contributing to this thread further

Just to add (as I think it needs saying), for me personally, pretty much ALL of the concern is really about protecting other people, who may feel differently or have family members or dependants that they are concerned about. I can't make that choice for them?

 

[Mawsley]

Just to add (as I think it needs saying), for me personally, pretty much ALL of the concern is really about protecting other people, who may feel differently or have family members or dependants that they are concerned about. I can't make that choice for them?

 

[Crewella]

Sorry - I was just about to add 'and no, you don't need to reply to that'.

 

[knome]

Scariness from a non-statistical viewpoint...

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2...i-do-a-doctors-dispatches-from-intensive-care

 

[Mr Ripple]

Scariness from a non-statistical viewpoint...

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2...i-do-a-doctors-dispatches-from-intensive-care

Can't view any registration required news sites.

 

[oldhippydude]

Can't view any registration required news sites.

I read it without registering.
it came up no problem