Yes, but everybody on the ship got first class health care, and 233 people are still ill (1.5 months later form most infections), including 15 in critical condition. We don’t know the age of those who are still ill or how many younger people will die if there will be no health care. Also, there will be disproprtionally small number of young people on that ship.
The study is relevant because it aims to control for the age distribution, but of course if data is biased you never know completely. That everybody got perfect health care should also apply to all age groups, shouldn’t it?
Sorry but I do not see where older people having higher fatality when medicine fails leads to bias in the diamond princess data that would fit what you asked for in the original post. Please explain.
I don’t talk about mortality of old people at all. I only suggest that the claim that “young people below 40 have almost zero mortality” could be false.
Yes, but everybody on the ship got first class health care, and 233 people are still ill (1.5 months later form most infections), including 15 in critical condition. We don’t know the age of those who are still ill or how many younger people will die if there will be no health care. Also, there will be disproprtionally small number of young people on that ship.
The study is relevant because it aims to control for the age distribution, but of course if data is biased you never know completely. That everybody got perfect health care should also apply to all age groups, shouldn’t it?
Yes, older people will also have higher mortality when medicine fails.
And: “We see people in their thirties with no medical history, images of lungs are terrifying”
Sorry but I do not see where older people having higher fatality when medicine fails leads to bias in the diamond princess data that would fit what you asked for in the original post. Please explain.
I don’t talk about mortality of old people at all. I only suggest that the claim that “young people below 40 have almost zero mortality” could be false.