Yes, really (that the young dying of flu is very rare.) Now we may not agree on what "rare" means, but let's look at some statistics and perhaps, get some absolute as well as relative numbers.
Using US figures: In a normal year, about 3 million die of all causes. In a bad year, perhaps 50,000 are by influe…
Yes, really (that the young dying of flu is very rare.) Now we may not agree on what "rare" means, but let's look at some statistics and perhaps, get some absolute as well as relative numbers.
Using US figures: In a normal year, about 3 million die of all causes. In a bad year, perhaps 50,000 are by influenza. Being generous (round up) that is 1.7% of all deaths.
Preliminary observation: Unless your social circle is very odd (elderly sick people) it is infrequent in any given year that anyone would even die, and if they did, only a 1/59 chance it was by flu.
I found this source of info breaking down flu deaths by age:
"Spoken like an ignoramus. Allow me to demolish your claim"
your snarky intro, so the readers may see why i will be butchering you in the following.
you are but an arrogant asshole, an ignoramus par excellence,
with your pea sized brain it hasn't occurred to you that your interpretation of " the young dying is very rare" might not be quite what it actually should be?
even if 99.999 % percent of all influenza deaths are in the age group of the over 65 of age that does not say anything about an influenza death being very rare in the young.
i will leave you to figure that one out .
and after you did you can come back to apologise, or more likely keep your big mouth shut and disappear from here.
But, yes, flu deaths are rare in young people. That should be an obvious and uncontroversial statement, mental gymnastics in interpreting statistics notwithstanding. Flu (like covid and the common cold) has always been deadly mainly among the very old and sick, and among younger people who are seriously ill with co-morbidities, although outlier exceptions always exist, of course. That said, I remember reading in multiple places that covid was actually less dangerous to the very young than the flu, so if you are making that comparison, you may have something to say. Otherwise, I think it would be wiser to avoid doubling down on this.
if 5% of children under the age of 5 that do die, die of influenza i would not consider that rare.
children in that age group dying of any cause may be rare, but one in twenty of them dying from a particular disease does not make the cause of death rare, quite the opposite.
Just take the "L" gracefully and move on for crying out loud. He said "and it's very rare for a younger person to die from flu". It's straight-forward and uncontroversial statement. It happens infrequently.
He did not say it's rare compared to being struck by lightning or mauled by lions. Had he said that (as an example) then you are right, it would have been incorrect. But he didn't, his statement was absolute, not relative.
I don't get why people insist on torturing language rather than just admit they goofed. It's not a big deal, we all do it.
Interesting claim--5% of children under the age of 5 die of influenza? You are saying that the infection fatality rate or even the case fatality rate for influenza for children under 5 is 5%? That would be extremely disturbing! Oh, wait, that sentence began with a clause introduced by the word "if", which means it's a hypothetical statement. Do you have any real evidence, like government statistics for example, showing a 5% fatality rate for influenza? Please share it with us.
Also, your sentence is rather strange, saying "if 5% of children under the age of 5 that do die, die of influenza", so it is not clear what you mean. Are you saying that of all the deaths of children under 5, 5% are from influenza? Again, what is your evidence? And, assuming this is correct, as in the case of "covid", do these 5% of children die *of* influenza, or *with* influenza? In other words, if the already small number (at least before they were getting the jabs) of children under the age of 5 dying had serious illnesses such as cancer or fatal congenital conditions and a case of flu (or a cold) carried them over the edge, are you suggesting that means that for the population of children that age as a whole, death from flu is 5%?
Just curious, have you been dipping into Bill Gates's copy of "How to Lie with Statistics"?
"CDC estimates that from the 2010-2011 season to the 2019-2020 season, flu-related hospitalizations among children younger than 5 years old have ranged from 7,000 to 26,000 in the United States. While relatively rare, some children die from flu each year."
[Edited to remove snarky intro.]
Yes, really (that the young dying of flu is very rare.) Now we may not agree on what "rare" means, but let's look at some statistics and perhaps, get some absolute as well as relative numbers.
Using US figures: In a normal year, about 3 million die of all causes. In a bad year, perhaps 50,000 are by influenza. Being generous (round up) that is 1.7% of all deaths.
Preliminary observation: Unless your social circle is very odd (elderly sick people) it is infrequent in any given year that anyone would even die, and if they did, only a 1/59 chance it was by flu.
I found this source of info breaking down flu deaths by age:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1127698/influenza-us-deaths-by-age-group/
If I did my maths right, that is 486 deaths (18 and under) out of 20342, or about 2.4% of flu deaths. Flu deaths claim disproportionately the old.
"Spoken like an ignoramus. Allow me to demolish your claim"
your snarky intro, so the readers may see why i will be butchering you in the following.
you are but an arrogant asshole, an ignoramus par excellence,
with your pea sized brain it hasn't occurred to you that your interpretation of " the young dying is very rare" might not be quite what it actually should be?
even if 99.999 % percent of all influenza deaths are in the age group of the over 65 of age that does not say anything about an influenza death being very rare in the young.
i will leave you to figure that one out .
and after you did you can come back to apologise, or more likely keep your big mouth shut and disappear from here.
But, yes, flu deaths are rare in young people. That should be an obvious and uncontroversial statement, mental gymnastics in interpreting statistics notwithstanding. Flu (like covid and the common cold) has always been deadly mainly among the very old and sick, and among younger people who are seriously ill with co-morbidities, although outlier exceptions always exist, of course. That said, I remember reading in multiple places that covid was actually less dangerous to the very young than the flu, so if you are making that comparison, you may have something to say. Otherwise, I think it would be wiser to avoid doubling down on this.
you are making exactly the same mistake.
if 5% of children under the age of 5 that do die, die of influenza i would not consider that rare.
children in that age group dying of any cause may be rare, but one in twenty of them dying from a particular disease does not make the cause of death rare, quite the opposite.
Just take the "L" gracefully and move on for crying out loud. He said "and it's very rare for a younger person to die from flu". It's straight-forward and uncontroversial statement. It happens infrequently.
He did not say it's rare compared to being struck by lightning or mauled by lions. Had he said that (as an example) then you are right, it would have been incorrect. But he didn't, his statement was absolute, not relative.
I don't get why people insist on torturing language rather than just admit they goofed. It's not a big deal, we all do it.
i cannot help that you have problems with comprehensive reading.
absolute and relative mean anything to you?
and how to express the difference?
Interesting claim--5% of children under the age of 5 die of influenza? You are saying that the infection fatality rate or even the case fatality rate for influenza for children under 5 is 5%? That would be extremely disturbing! Oh, wait, that sentence began with a clause introduced by the word "if", which means it's a hypothetical statement. Do you have any real evidence, like government statistics for example, showing a 5% fatality rate for influenza? Please share it with us.
Also, your sentence is rather strange, saying "if 5% of children under the age of 5 that do die, die of influenza", so it is not clear what you mean. Are you saying that of all the deaths of children under 5, 5% are from influenza? Again, what is your evidence? And, assuming this is correct, as in the case of "covid", do these 5% of children die *of* influenza, or *with* influenza? In other words, if the already small number (at least before they were getting the jabs) of children under the age of 5 dying had serious illnesses such as cancer or fatal congenital conditions and a case of flu (or a cold) carried them over the edge, are you suggesting that means that for the population of children that age as a whole, death from flu is 5%?
Just curious, have you been dipping into Bill Gates's copy of "How to Lie with Statistics"?
This from the CDC...for what it's worth:
"CDC estimates that from the 2010-2011 season to the 2019-2020 season, flu-related hospitalizations among children younger than 5 years old have ranged from 7,000 to 26,000 in the United States. While relatively rare, some children die from flu each year."
and where, if i may ask, did i claim that 5% of the children under the age of 5 die of influenza?
now read it again and if you still don't grasp what i did write, report back.
even without the "if" it would not mean that the case or infection mortality rate would be 5%.
i can take it you do know what case or infection mortality rate means?
so you do seem to know what hypothetical means.
at least hypothetically you do, in practice not so much...
you do appreciate the difference between "of" and "with"?
if so, which of the two did i use and what would that mean?
just curious, what is your first language?