Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 4 replies
  • Subscribers 16 subscribers
  • Views 328 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

Covid 19 increasing despite vaccinations

CliveS

See world statistics in WHO site attached. 

 

 

Herd Immunity and final Crude Mortality Rate

Crude mortality rate is not really applicable during an ongoing epidemic.

And to reach herd immunity for COVID-19 and effectively end the epidemic, approximately two thirds (67%) of the population would need to be infected. As of May 1, New York City is at 20%, based on the antibody study findings.

Therefore, the crude mortality rate has the potential to more than triple from our current estimate, reaching close to 1,000 deaths per 100,000 population (1% CMR), and close to 300 per 100,000 (0.3% CMR) in the population under 65 years old, with 89% of these deaths (267 out of 300) occurring in people with a known underlying medical condition (including obesity).

This statement from a New York survey indicates that only 300-267 fit and well people will die of Covid19.  So 33 younger active people in 100,000 will die which is just not worth worrying about as everyone runs the risk of dying by other illnesses or traffic, tripping, swimming, climbing accidents  at any time and really it is up to God to decide who will live and who will die. 

Parents
  • 0

    Personally I find this a deeply unpleasant post. I cannot buy into the idea that it's ok to let 0.3% of the population suffer and die unnecessarily (and also that it's ok because many of those will be fat). If I engineered a system where 0.3% of its users died as a direct result of the behaviour of that system I would not be only sacked but (quite rightly) prosecuted.

    You clearly have a different view, and in ethics there are no absolutes, only opinions. But my opinion is that I prefer living in a society where a higher value than this is placed on human life and health. 

    Andy

Reply
  • 0

    Personally I find this a deeply unpleasant post. I cannot buy into the idea that it's ok to let 0.3% of the population suffer and die unnecessarily (and also that it's ok because many of those will be fat). If I engineered a system where 0.3% of its users died as a direct result of the behaviour of that system I would not be only sacked but (quite rightly) prosecuted.

    You clearly have a different view, and in ethics there are no absolutes, only opinions. But my opinion is that I prefer living in a society where a higher value than this is placed on human life and health. 

    Andy

Children
No Data

Community Rules & Guidelines