Hacker News Reader

Comment by netsharc | Hacker News Reader

Sheesh, you don't like "selective" data but you just say "0.03%" without a bigger context.

For fiction's sake: if France only had 50 deaths/million and according to your "only 300 more people/million more" the UK would have 350 deaths/million, that's "only 0.03% more" but geez, 7x more deadly in the UK than in France!

According to [1], the UK has so far 2351.99 deaths/M and France has 1868.02. The rate of death is 26% higher in the UK.

And that's 0.186% vs 0.235% rate of death. 0.049% (or even 0.03% from your data) is still a big jump.

[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1104709/coronavirus-deat...

View on HN

So, first, I used [1] this which show 2304 in uk vs 2002 in France. I don't have an account so I can't check sources, but find the difference between your dataset and mine for France quite significant and not sure which one to trust. (this difference has nothing to do with your reply, just find it strange)

So, based on your data: Country | total deaths | population (mm) | % death France: | 125,269 | 67.06 | 0.186% UK: | 157,194 | 66.83 | 0.235%

I don't care so much about the % higher when we are dealing with these kinds of numbers. Is the same as 'eating red meat increases your changes of colon cancer by 10%!!!!` and then you see it increased it from 0.01% to 0.011% (or something like that).

For me, you can find a million explanations for that small difference in the numbers, and I doubt it can be attributed to UK's government handling of the situation.

[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1111779/coronavirus-deat...

Shrugs, I should've learnt trying to debate people on the Internet is useless, they come up with their justifications why they were right in the first place.

I guess I should start saying my net worth is about 0.1% lower than Jeff Bezos', on the 10E+16 scale or whatever the correct number maybe, I should ask you, you're better at maths.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com