6118
Comments (564)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
113
IJustWannaLurk 113 points ago +115 / -2

Stellar ... stellar stat from John MacArthur:

"The whole state of California is deceived about reality. We were in court today and our attorneys presented a statistic to the court that is staggering. The statistic is this: if you’re between the ages of 50 and 64 in California, you have a 1 in 19.1 million chance of dying of COVID, and yet this whole state is locked down in the most severe level."

https://protestia.com/2020/10/05/john-macarthur-on-grace-church-opening-we-dont-want-to-kill-people/

64
Knight1_of_Sunset 64 points ago +64 / -0

You literally have a better chance of winning a million dollars at the Powerball Lottery than dying of the China Virus.

24
deleted 24 points ago +24 / -0
15
Crisatunity_knocks 15 points ago +15 / -0

You have an even greater chance of dying in a car accident driving home with your oversized novelty cheque after having collected your lottery winnings.

8
deleted 8 points ago +8 / -0
6
HillarysBeaverMunch 6 points ago +6 / -0

While at the same time skydiving without a parachute.

-7
HuggableBear -7 points ago +3 / -10

200,000 people have not won a million dollars in Powerball.

Even if you just take people with no comorbidities, 10,000 people have not won a million in powerball, not in the same time frame.

2
deleted 2 points ago +3 / -1
-4
HuggableBear -4 points ago +2 / -6

I'd say reality is not yours.

Unless you think that your statistical projections should carry more weight than actual data?

I can also claim stupid shit like you're more likely to get eaten by a bear than die from covid, that doesn't make it accurate.

-2
p8riot -2 points ago +10 / -12

That statistic doesn't make any sense. There are only 2.5 million total people in California in that age range.

If even 1 person died, that would make it 1 in 2.5 million - so 1 in 19 million is impossible.

16
Tyrone_biggums 16 points ago +18 / -2

Calculating someone’s odds of dying from something isn’t bound by their population... It sounds like they multiplied several probabilities together, I wouldn’t mind seeing how it was arrived at

-5
p8riot -5 points ago +5 / -10

What do you mean? Women have a 1 in 7 chance of getting breast cancer

That means 1 in every 7 women, statistically, will end up diagnosed with it

5
CantStumpTheTrump 5 points ago +10 / -5

I'm just going to say it, you're dumb as shit.

That also means 2 in 14,

It also means 20 billion in 140 billion, or 10 billion in 70 billion even though there aren't that many people.....

Did you just sleep through math?

11
farstriderr 11 points ago +12 / -1

That's not how stats work. Stats just give odds of something happening. They don't literally tell you how many people it will happen to.

Simply put, say the odds of dying were 1 in 4. That means your chances of dying are 25%. That does not mean that one person will always die out of every 4 people. It could be none die, or they all could die, or anything in between.

1
HuggableBear 1 point ago +3 / -2

No, but it means in a large enough sample size the actual data will in fact approach that number.

1 in 4 dying doesn't mean 1 person will die out of a group of 4.

It does mean that out of 20 million people, the number of dead will be near 5 million.

The sample size they are dealing with is large enough to provide accurate statistics.

You also have to factor in time frames. There is a 100% death rate for every living creature on this planet. But not today.

I suspect they used time frames to extend those numbers because it's easily provably false any other way. As he said, even one person dying in that age range gives the lie to that stat, and a lot more than 1 have died from it.

It's more likely to be something like "On any given day, people 50-64 in California have a 1 in 19 million chance of dying from covid."

-4
p8riot -4 points ago +4 / -8

What do you mean? Women have a 1 in 7 chance of getting breast cancer

That means 1 in every 7 women, statistically, will end up diagnosed with it

So that's why the Cali stat makes no sense. There are 2.5 million people in that age range, so even if only 100 people died, that's already a 1 in 25,000 chance (still very good odds to be fair)

7
charbatch 7 points ago +7 / -0

What do YOU mean? You aren't making any sense.

3
daveinpublic 3 points ago +3 / -0

If there were only 2.5 million people in California ages 50-64, the states total population would only be like 10 or 12 million.

1
day221 1 point ago +2 / -1

I don't know why you are being downvoted. The people responding to you have no idea what they are talking about.

7
deleted 7 points ago +7 / -0
6
daveinpublic 6 points ago +6 / -0

Actually you're wrong. There are not 2.5 million ages 50-64. Not sure where you got that, it's not anywhere near that low.

2
spezisacuckold 2 points ago +3 / -1

You clearly have never taken a Statistics 101 course.

-1
p8riot -1 points ago +1 / -2

Provide something of value to the discussion or remain silent.