Bear with me now, I’m still learning math
2019 is 15% less than 3,358,814 or 2019 was 2,824,763 total
15.9% increase equals 3,358,814 minus 2,824,763 or 534,051.
therefore, 15.9% or 534,051 = 100% of the increase
and 11.3% = 2/3’rds to 3/4’ths of the increase
common denominator 3 chosen: 11.3% / 15.9% = 2/3
2/3 x 534,051 = 356,312
common denominator 4 chosen: 11.3 / 15.9% = 3/4
3/4 x 534,051 = 400,528
which gives us a ballpark range that puts the CDC figure of 377K right in the middle and so makes sense
going further, 22% under age 64 x 377K = 82K or over 370/day
I understand your thousands thousands number, and I get how you got to 397,250
But I think where you tripped up is on not translating the percentages
so using your number of 397K x 3/4 = 298K and x 2/3 = 265K
then going with ballpark under 65 at 22% that would be 65K and 58.3K respectively, versus ‘my’ number of 82K. which is 10x your number.
yes?
As you know, I live in the land of groundhog day where every day is a lockdown of some sort for the last 18 months. As such, I am adamently adverse to locking down areas that have little spread.
However, I think a lot of apathy is expressed towards ‘the elderly’ deaths. Yes, they were the highest casualties last year, no doubt. (maybe not so true this year?) But does that make their deaths less significant? Do people lose their value when they hit 65 even while they still remain the main captains of industry and babysitters (and wallets) for their working (or not) sons and daughters? We ran into nursing homes to give them shots, wanted or not, conscious or not, because the HCW/first responders were terrified a patient would get them sick, but when it’s time for HCW/FRs to do the same, they balk at protecting the elderly that protected them, even throwing a fit over the ‘testing biweekly’ option while insisting kids get take on the burden that should be squarely on the shoulders of adults in a moral society. Whether those adults choose vaccination, monoclonals or staying away from crowds. I think we should value elderly deaths more and not excuse them with a wave of the hand as if we’re ‘normalizing’ death. jmo
However, I think a lot of apathy is expressed towards ‘the elderly’ deaths. Yes, they were the highest casualties last year, no doubt. (maybe not so true this year?) But does that make their deaths less significant?
It means that you shouldn't force tens or hundreds of millions of people at very little risk, to get experimental gene therapy, or lose their jobs -- while winking at their employers that you won't require them to record adverse events...
When almost everybody in the workplace, who is being forced to get the jabs, is under 65, and at MUCH lower risk than the old.