It’s difficult. We calculate that the tax bill for a business with £400k profit, all paid out as dividends, goes up by c£50k on Labour proposals. (Higher CT plus higher rate of dividend tax).
Could easily mean one less person employed.
The GDP was left for revisions leaving out a -1 to -2 points, so excluding what ever is, they decided leave out, it can calculate a nominal rate of growth of 1.2 to 2.2 REALITY not fun being lied to! The Trump Cartel has the pan by the handle
Multicentre study found that strict adherence to guidelines led to computed tomography scans being overused in children with minor head injuries.: Our primary aim was to calculate the head computed tomography CT scan rate in children with a minor head… http://bioportfol.io/QyKtJGpic.twitter.com/xwH8gpAxoa
The study was done not only to see what percentage of the population was infected but to calculate the infection fatality rate (IFR) by dividing the number of deaths in the state by the number of people infected in the population as scaled up from the sample.
The tragedy here is that a study that wasn’t designed to calculate fatality rate pre-print published an anecdotal (and likely skewed) one that is now being used by people to argue this is just the flu. Ioannidis staked his reputation on low fatality rate and found what he sought.
Fun fact, when they calculate per capita rates, it takes population differences into consideration. CT has a gun death rate of 4.6 people per 100,000. FL has a gun death rate of 12.6 people per 100,000.
Thanks. Seems consistent with everywhere not NYC or Italy. Hard to calculate IFR with so many uncertainties on how the cause of death is determined. Why does NYC have 2X the death rate of most places in US (MI also high).
Not sure how I can simplify this further, but here’s one last try: say you’re asked to calculate the death rate of a virus using a fixed no. of deaths: the higher the no. of people infected, the lower the death rate; the lower the no. of people infected, the higher the death rate
A variety of things: coronavirus, crime, suicide, people not going to the hospital for treatment due to fear of coronavirus. Also to be fair any death from Coronavirus is an "unexpected death" but that does not mean we should use all "unexpected death" to calculate death rate.
Death rate is not 0.03% and no one would calculate it like that. Restricting testing to who think they have it and have symptoms and show up on CT scans etc is not how you calculate prevalence among pop. of 3 month old virus.
Countries with mass testing it’s 2-5% of tests
We don't know the current infection rate, can't calculate the mortality rate with any confidence and have no idea whether we'll finish the first wave with 1% infected or 80%.
But other than that, yes, we've come a long way since 1918.
Testing in New York State have shown that there are likely around 3 million (15%) cases, so you could say the actual death rate is 0.05%. It will be a little higher due to unresolved cases which will still result in death, but we cannot calculate an exact mortality rate...