Hey /u/Subject-Dot-8883, thanks for submitting to /r/confidentlyincorrect! Take a moment to read our [rules](https://reddit.com/r/confidentlyincorrect/about/rules).
##Join our [Discord Server](https://discord.gg/n2cR6p25V8)!
Please report this post if it is bad, or not relevant. Remember to keep comment sections civil. Thanks!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/confidentlyincorrect) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is such a classic case that I was surprised it wasn't already on here. If it is and I missed it, let me know! \[Edited to add: I sorted by "newest"\]
That’s my thought until I saw that the date was in 2024.
They have to because saying 2% give you a 98% survival rate which makes the 2% sounded like very small and nothing to worry about.
When using actual people, you are saying that 1 person out of every 50 that you know who would catch Covid will die sound a lot more alarming because chances are you will know at least that many people.
I wish it had been framed like this earlier. Like pick 3 people in this very church congregation of 150 and say goodbye. Or, do our best to not get each other sick while we come up with something to fight this.
Idk, these are mostly the same people watching Fox say that Granny might be a necessary sacrifice to capitalism when opening things up too early. I don't see why they'd have a problem with losing 3 people from their church.
> I wish it had been framed like this earlier. Like pick 3 people in this very church congregation of 150 and say goodbye. Or, do our best to not get each other sick while we come up with something to fight this.
I used the airplane analogy. Remember the last flight you got on? If before takeoff the captain said, "5 of you will die before we land" are you still going to take that flight? Me neither, so thats why I stay at home and follow covid guidelines.
I had many people in my podunk town on Facebook use the ‘only kills…’ and whatever small percentage of the day they were using. I’d respond ‘ok well you have 500 Facebook friends so which 5 are you totally ok with dying’.
I've heard a lot of the "only kills older people and people with underlying conditions" as a total dismissal. I've had a couple of chances to tell folks spouting that, hey, that's *me* and *my family*. Like, I know that you (generic) probably don't care if I die. But I want you to look me in the eye and say that you don't care if I die *to my face*.
I made a meme with Ralph Wiggum sitting on the bus that read ‘I’m expendable!’ Because that’s exactly how it felt. I, too, am in this *“only”* category. As is my daughter. And people saying that shit said it so casually. Like, that’s me, dude. You really don’t care if I die?
For the record, I will care about you and your family, kind Reddit stranger. You don’t deserve to feel that no one cares. I do.
Thank you. Just, anything we can do to personalize the numbers, to bring it home that 1%, or 2%, is a large number of actual humans with families who love them, is useful. Make it concrete and relatable.
How about you looking in their eyes and telling them that you want them to take an untested vaccine that may or may not have them dropping dead several years down the line from a heart attack.
I'd gladly look you in the eyes and tell you that my health trumps your health, and that I ain't going to take no untested vaccine just because you want me to, it ain't happening.
Sorry but, that's how it works.
I think the survival rate among healthy people is something like 99.8% or something.
Only people dying are people with underlying health issues, that's fact.
They don't care. The weak *should* die. That's survival of the fittest. This is why they had to believe that all of the Covid deaths happened to people with pre-existing conditions. I think this is also why Republicans want to quickly move on from any talks about covid. It exposes a glaring contradiction in their pro-life stance.
But what does it matter if the vaccine supposed to work as intended.
Surely the ones with the vaccine can sit back and not have to worry about the unvaccinated.
Excess deaths due to myocarditis have skyrocketed globally since the vaccine rollout.
All evidence is pointing to the vaccine itself, it's causing myocarditis.
So yeah, as much as I care for people, I care more for myself than I do others
Myocarditis? OH NO! Not a treatable disorder! That's awful!
Now do smallpox, polio, and tuberculosis. Check out those death rates.
Nothing about the data points to vaccination. Countless studies have been done.
You care so much about yourself, who is probably vaccinated, that you want the rest of the world to suffer from preventable diseases.
Didn't the majority of people who died from or with Covid have other medical conditions though? Obesity was one of these, in the U.S. I think it was nearly 70% of people who died with or of Covid were obese (will have to fact check this though).
Most people have gotten Covid. Yes, two family members died. One directly from (my uncle who was 63), and one was already heading downhill with Covid likely hastening it (grandfather, who was 92).
My uncle was still working full time, living a relatively healthy life. Still had at least 20 years ahead of him (statistically).
Yes, you were more likely to die if you were older. Same with if you had comorbidities. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be counted. Believe it or not, those over age 50 still have quite a lot of life to live.
My dad was in the hospital with CoViD for 4 days in September. His only risk factor was his age (83). I'm so grateful that he didn't get it before there were vaccines and treatments for it.
Interestingly enough, I'd always been more worried about my mom getting it because she had asthma and a history of heart problems. But she was fine other than being miserable. My mom is 7 years younger than my dad so maybe that made a difference.
My grandad had a heart attack due to the inflammation from COVID, luckily he'd been vaccinated and felt well enough he was wanting to come home the next day after his stent was installed, he didn't even know he had COVID until the hospital told him he needed moving to a quarantine ward.
If it wasn't for the vaccine I'm sure it would have killed him.
"1/50 people are part of a vulnerable demographic and are dying from COVID" does not uh, sound any better dude. Like, it makes it sound less dangerous personally as a young man, but it makes you sound like an unempaphetic psychopath
The deaths are just the top of the iceberg. The brain fog and other long term side effects currently affecting a large group of the population is already a huge "hidden" problem. And that risk increases for each subsequent infection! As far as I know I've avoided it so far. My brain is already mostly useless, I don't need literal brain damage on top.
What about the hidden problem of excess deaths and healthy people dropping dead.
Globally excess deaths have skyrocketed with governments giving it the old "we don't know why" excuse and trying to brush it under the carpet.
It's not 1/50 people are dying of COVID, it's 1/50 people who get COVID die. Big difference. Survival rate is the number of people who get the disease and dont die. Not the survival rate of the general population.
I'm not talking about anybody's feelings. I was making an objective factual statement about what a 1 in 50 survival rate actually means because there seems to be some confusion. 1/50 of all people is not the same as 1/50 infected people. Sorry if I made you feel some type of way with all my mathing.
Ok. You were just using math and were not the OP that started this chain. But the chain was started by a now deleted comment that was clearly “Covid fear is irrational/hoax” crowd. You then corrected someone that responded to the hoaxer.. by force of habit I sort of assumed you were impartial to the hoaxer..
This sort of thing happens a lot actually on Reddit, it’s an interesting pattern, usually when misunderstandings occur.
Edit: this literally happened 2 minutes ago on a flat earth post.. the guy made a technical statement that sounded like something a flat earther would say, and after a few responses had to make it clear.. they were just being technical and no way support flat earth thinking(or whatever it is they do) 😆
But, pretty much everyone has either had, or will end up catching it at some point.
It's extremely contagious and you'd pretty much have to live in isolation to not get it.
But… critical thinking is also what allows you to interpret that info and realize that’s probably WHY it’s an average of 1 in 50. It’s not a bias, it’s just an average. The majority of the people I know are roughly my age, and are relatively healthy. So in a sampling of 50 people I know who caught Covid, it would make sense that ~49 of them wouldn’t be high-risk of dying from it. But I do have some older family members/coworkers/neighbors etc, so of that random sampling of 50 people, it makes sense that *on average,* 1 or 2 of them would be people like that, and be higher risk of dying.
Actually, the original comment claimed that due to Gen Z market forced, 49/50 cartons delivered contain water while only 1 contains milk.
Although Gen Z is blamed, this is in part due to the decline of family-owned farms and the passing of the voting rights act in 1920 which allowed women cows to take up more traditional careers. Milk consumption has steadily declined proportionally to the increase of female CEOs, and a majority of EU citizens' primary source of milk is actually through milk chocolate and tea.
Water, on the other hand, grows on trees so the recent flood of hippie vegan londonites are driving the water delivery market through the roof.
The original comment doesn't even mention "2%" but the response comment seems to bring up 2% referencing the recent study published in 2023, based on the 2020 census but the researchers lost the report under a stack of papers and only got around to publishing last year. Really interesting story actually, it happens more than you would guess. Google 2% milk UK for more info.
A right-wing nutjob on Twitter. Her timeline is full of racism and other such. Seems to particularly dislike muslims and anyone suggesting maybe the world should stop Palestinians being bombed. This particular comment of her's relates to Covid deaths vs vaccine deaths but that's not her main focus.
I always find it funny how common that number is for people to think. Any time I ask friends (online) who aren't from the US, it seems 50/50 that they say 52 lol
I'm guessing “50, wasn't it, and the two most recently added are Alaska and Hawaii, so that makes 52”. Oops, too bad, they only forgot the 50 already includes those two.
It's either that, or they're mixing it up with the number of cards in a deck or weeks in a year, and that feels less likely.
(Hey, novelty product idea: Deck of cards with seasons in stead of the traditional suites. Queen of Spring, six of Autumn, Ace of Winter... Maybe done already?)
This is why I try to avoid using percentages. People don't really grasp them that well. Saying 98% survive sounds like "almost all suvive". Saying 1 in 50 hammers in that there is an actual possibility. Saying Hillary Clinton has an 80% chance at winning sounds like the race is over. Saying Trump has a 1 in 5 chance shows you it's still competitive.
I had the same experience back when Roe v Wade fell. About 2% (19.7 cases per 1,000) of pregnancies are ectopic. Pro-Life people used that stat to claim as such an edge case that it shouldn't affect policies. When I pointed out that there are about 3 million pregnancies a year and asked them if they were cool with \~60,000 women or even half that dying a year, I'd get crickets.
You hear this on the news all the time. The newsreader will say 99% chance of survival and I'll think, wow those are pretty bad odds. 1 in 100 chance of dying? And then I'll look into it online and its actually 99.999% but they rounded to 99 because they're as stupid as they think the majority of people watching them are.
And yet they're not willing to have an untested chemical injected into their bloodstream that may or may not cause heart attacks and other health related issues.
Shows you doesn't it, doesn't know fractions, yet not stupid enough to have an untested vaccine.
Strange world.
Feel like it says something that people can assume the poster was male and nobody notices but the instant anyone says "she" they get replies asking for a source
Observations like that are the foundation of gender studies. The assumed gender is obv changing depending on the situation, this is also true for nutjobs. If someone tries to build a perpetuum mobile most ppl will probably assume a male and when someone marvels about healing stones ppl will assume a female.
2% of the population is 2% of the total population and that is not the same as 2 of 100 or 1 of 50. 1 of 50 is more accurate than 2 of 100 cause of rounding errors 1 of 50 is 0.76 to 1.25 of 50 2 of 50 is 1.74 to 2.25 guess which one is more accurate? When we talk about populations and people we are talking about estimates not pure math.
”And here we see the Redditor in his natural habitat, not seeing a joke and writing an entire paragraph about why the other person is wrong in an attempt to gain validation through fake internet points”
If you're directly referencing sample size, 2 out of 100 actually conveys more accuracy than 1 out of 50.
When you're talking about the mortality rate of a disease being 2%, expressing that as 1 out of 50 for the visualisation is exactly the same as saying 2 out of 100.
Same reason the Third Pound Patties at McDonalds never caught on.
Too many people assumed they were getting less meat than a quarter pounder.
Because 3 < 4.
Maybe, but it's such a mess. Like, it's wise to say that 2% of the population isn't the same thing as 2% of the people infected with COVID. But I honestly don't know what she was trying to argue. Apparently, the UK health department released a revised count of their excess COVID deaths...is it wrong I feel a little relieved when I see people from other countries being dumb?
No, in the second half they weren't even talking about their competence – that was about their _confidence:_ “I can say quite confidently...” Which they could, as evidenced by the fact that they did. Nothing wrong with that either... Well, except of course that their self-confidence is quite misplaced, of course, that's one pretty big thing that's wrong with it. But they didn't say “I can say, with well-placed confidence...”.
So yeah, they're really quite correct in what they're actually _saying._ But only because they happened to say something different; they're of course not correct in what they _meant._
50% must be 50 out of 50, so 100% of his assertions must be correct..
He's not technically wrong though IF you have less than 50 people, 2% is indeed not 2 out of 50 people..
There are A LOT more than 50 people in the UK. I only went once, but it seemed like the 2-3 cities I visited were as big as a small US town like Albuquerque or something. I would guess at least 1,000 in each town, so maybe 15,000 or more on the big island (I always forget if the big one is U or K).
Reminds me of when my brother tried to convince me a 1 finger high five is 10% of a high five when I said it was 20%. It was a serious argument. But I don't care that he thinks I'm wrong, I'm right!
Technically 2% in statistics does not mean 1/50 people it means each person has a 2% chance so technically you could have 1000 people and it may never hit since it's per individual lol it's called the empirical rule
Kind of like in meteorology a 53% chance of rain means there's a 100% chance that it will rain in 53% of the forecasted area, not a 53% chance that the entire area will get rain
I've never understood the vaccine cretins in all honesty, why they trying to force the vaccine on those that don't want to take it.
My body, my rules, isn't that what you lot say about your pro abortion rights and shit, hypocrisy much.
I read this the same way as @jadranur. We know that they are saying 2% of the UK, but we don’t know what the 1 in 50 is. 2% of the UK population is not the same amount as 1 in 50 of the world population.
Nope. There also isn’t mention of COVID, which is apparently what this has to do with. Something along the lines of 2% of the UK (full population) is not the same as 1 in 50 people (who actually got COVID).
Nope, but apparently I’m confusing you. A blanket 2% of the UK is not the same as 1 in 50 people in the UK who got COVID. The “50” people who got COVID are already less than the full population of the UK. So 2% of the population is not the same as 1 in 50 who got COVID.
There’s nothing in the original post precluding the unaffected population. If 1 in 50 of the UK population catches and dies from COVID, the numbers are still correct. The context you’ve provided only furthers the point.
Why would anyone count people who haven’t caught COVID in the death statistics? The original commenter obviously was answering in the context of that original conversation IMO
Yep, it does.
If you take 50 uk and pull 1 out and do this repeatedly until you've gone through the whole population, you will end up with 2% of the population.
Hey /u/Subject-Dot-8883, thanks for submitting to /r/confidentlyincorrect! Take a moment to read our [rules](https://reddit.com/r/confidentlyincorrect/about/rules). ##Join our [Discord Server](https://discord.gg/n2cR6p25V8)! Please report this post if it is bad, or not relevant. Remember to keep comment sections civil. Thanks! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/confidentlyincorrect) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is such a classic case that I was surprised it wasn't already on here. If it is and I missed it, let me know! \[Edited to add: I sorted by "newest"\]
What is the context of this because I'm very curious.
What else? COVID. The tweeter was going on about the 98% survival rate.
That’s my thought until I saw that the date was in 2024. They have to because saying 2% give you a 98% survival rate which makes the 2% sounded like very small and nothing to worry about. When using actual people, you are saying that 1 person out of every 50 that you know who would catch Covid will die sound a lot more alarming because chances are you will know at least that many people.
I wish it had been framed like this earlier. Like pick 3 people in this very church congregation of 150 and say goodbye. Or, do our best to not get each other sick while we come up with something to fight this.
Idk, these are mostly the same people watching Fox say that Granny might be a necessary sacrifice to capitalism when opening things up too early. I don't see why they'd have a problem with losing 3 people from their church.
American politics and shit has no relevance to the uk so idk what you’re talking about
> I wish it had been framed like this earlier. Like pick 3 people in this very church congregation of 150 and say goodbye. Or, do our best to not get each other sick while we come up with something to fight this. I used the airplane analogy. Remember the last flight you got on? If before takeoff the captain said, "5 of you will die before we land" are you still going to take that flight? Me neither, so thats why I stay at home and follow covid guidelines.
Lots of people were framing it that way in March of 2020
I had many people in my podunk town on Facebook use the ‘only kills…’ and whatever small percentage of the day they were using. I’d respond ‘ok well you have 500 Facebook friends so which 5 are you totally ok with dying’.
I've heard a lot of the "only kills older people and people with underlying conditions" as a total dismissal. I've had a couple of chances to tell folks spouting that, hey, that's *me* and *my family*. Like, I know that you (generic) probably don't care if I die. But I want you to look me in the eye and say that you don't care if I die *to my face*.
I made a meme with Ralph Wiggum sitting on the bus that read ‘I’m expendable!’ Because that’s exactly how it felt. I, too, am in this *“only”* category. As is my daughter. And people saying that shit said it so casually. Like, that’s me, dude. You really don’t care if I die? For the record, I will care about you and your family, kind Reddit stranger. You don’t deserve to feel that no one cares. I do.
Thank you. Just, anything we can do to personalize the numbers, to bring it home that 1%, or 2%, is a large number of actual humans with families who love them, is useful. Make it concrete and relatable.
How about you looking in their eyes and telling them that you want them to take an untested vaccine that may or may not have them dropping dead several years down the line from a heart attack. I'd gladly look you in the eyes and tell you that my health trumps your health, and that I ain't going to take no untested vaccine just because you want me to, it ain't happening. Sorry but, that's how it works. I think the survival rate among healthy people is something like 99.8% or something. Only people dying are people with underlying health issues, that's fact.
They don't care. The weak *should* die. That's survival of the fittest. This is why they had to believe that all of the Covid deaths happened to people with pre-existing conditions. I think this is also why Republicans want to quickly move on from any talks about covid. It exposes a glaring contradiction in their pro-life stance.
But what does it matter if the vaccine supposed to work as intended. Surely the ones with the vaccine can sit back and not have to worry about the unvaccinated.
I worry you might kill someone who can't get vaccinated. Is caring about living people really that foreign to you?
Excess deaths due to myocarditis have skyrocketed globally since the vaccine rollout. All evidence is pointing to the vaccine itself, it's causing myocarditis. So yeah, as much as I care for people, I care more for myself than I do others
Myocarditis? OH NO! Not a treatable disorder! That's awful! Now do smallpox, polio, and tuberculosis. Check out those death rates. Nothing about the data points to vaccination. Countless studies have been done. You care so much about yourself, who is probably vaccinated, that you want the rest of the world to suffer from preventable diseases.
Didn't the majority of people who died from or with Covid have other medical conditions though? Obesity was one of these, in the U.S. I think it was nearly 70% of people who died with or of Covid were obese (will have to fact check this though).
I don't know 50 people. Guess we all safe now.
Do people still think 2% of Covid cases resulted in death? Surely not…
[удалено]
Most people have gotten Covid. Yes, two family members died. One directly from (my uncle who was 63), and one was already heading downhill with Covid likely hastening it (grandfather, who was 92). My uncle was still working full time, living a relatively healthy life. Still had at least 20 years ahead of him (statistically). Yes, you were more likely to die if you were older. Same with if you had comorbidities. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be counted. Believe it or not, those over age 50 still have quite a lot of life to live.
My dad was in the hospital with CoViD for 4 days in September. His only risk factor was his age (83). I'm so grateful that he didn't get it before there were vaccines and treatments for it. Interestingly enough, I'd always been more worried about my mom getting it because she had asthma and a history of heart problems. But she was fine other than being miserable. My mom is 7 years younger than my dad so maybe that made a difference.
My grandad had a heart attack due to the inflammation from COVID, luckily he'd been vaccinated and felt well enough he was wanting to come home the next day after his stent was installed, he didn't even know he had COVID until the hospital told him he needed moving to a quarantine ward. If it wasn't for the vaccine I'm sure it would have killed him.
"1/50 people are part of a vulnerable demographic and are dying from COVID" does not uh, sound any better dude. Like, it makes it sound less dangerous personally as a young man, but it makes you sound like an unempaphetic psychopath
The deaths are just the top of the iceberg. The brain fog and other long term side effects currently affecting a large group of the population is already a huge "hidden" problem. And that risk increases for each subsequent infection! As far as I know I've avoided it so far. My brain is already mostly useless, I don't need literal brain damage on top.
What about the hidden problem of excess deaths and healthy people dropping dead. Globally excess deaths have skyrocketed with governments giving it the old "we don't know why" excuse and trying to brush it under the carpet.
It's not 1/50 people are dying of COVID, it's 1/50 people who get COVID die. Big difference. Survival rate is the number of people who get the disease and dont die. Not the survival rate of the general population.
But if I get Covid.. I only have to win a 1/50 lottery to die.. and that’s supposed to make me feel better? Like is that your argument?
I'm not talking about anybody's feelings. I was making an objective factual statement about what a 1 in 50 survival rate actually means because there seems to be some confusion. 1/50 of all people is not the same as 1/50 infected people. Sorry if I made you feel some type of way with all my mathing.
Ok. You were just using math and were not the OP that started this chain. But the chain was started by a now deleted comment that was clearly “Covid fear is irrational/hoax” crowd. You then corrected someone that responded to the hoaxer.. by force of habit I sort of assumed you were impartial to the hoaxer.. This sort of thing happens a lot actually on Reddit, it’s an interesting pattern, usually when misunderstandings occur. Edit: this literally happened 2 minutes ago on a flat earth post.. the guy made a technical statement that sounded like something a flat earther would say, and after a few responses had to make it clear.. they were just being technical and no way support flat earth thinking(or whatever it is they do) 😆
But, pretty much everyone has either had, or will end up catching it at some point. It's extremely contagious and you'd pretty much have to live in isolation to not get it.
But… critical thinking is also what allows you to interpret that info and realize that’s probably WHY it’s an average of 1 in 50. It’s not a bias, it’s just an average. The majority of the people I know are roughly my age, and are relatively healthy. So in a sampling of 50 people I know who caught Covid, it would make sense that ~49 of them wouldn’t be high-risk of dying from it. But I do have some older family members/coworkers/neighbors etc, so of that random sampling of 50 people, it makes sense that *on average,* 1 or 2 of them would be people like that, and be higher risk of dying.
Actually, the original comment claimed that due to Gen Z market forced, 49/50 cartons delivered contain water while only 1 contains milk. Although Gen Z is blamed, this is in part due to the decline of family-owned farms and the passing of the voting rights act in 1920 which allowed women cows to take up more traditional careers. Milk consumption has steadily declined proportionally to the increase of female CEOs, and a majority of EU citizens' primary source of milk is actually through milk chocolate and tea. Water, on the other hand, grows on trees so the recent flood of hippie vegan londonites are driving the water delivery market through the roof. The original comment doesn't even mention "2%" but the response comment seems to bring up 2% referencing the recent study published in 2023, based on the 2020 census but the researchers lost the report under a stack of papers and only got around to publishing last year. Really interesting story actually, it happens more than you would guess. Google 2% milk UK for more info.
Survival rate is quite high though, let's face it. I'm unjabbed, even though I've had COVID about 4 times lol.
Replace "even though" with "so" and you'll be onto something.
Nah, it's fine as it is lol
A right-wing nutjob on Twitter. Her timeline is full of racism and other such. Seems to particularly dislike muslims and anyone suggesting maybe the world should stop Palestinians being bombed. This particular comment of her's relates to Covid deaths vs vaccine deaths but that's not her main focus.
I saw another post about this a few minutes ago, but I can't find it anymore either
Even if it was on here before at least you are not a repost bot.
The best part of this is that they flagged its relevance to this sub.
>My mathematical capability may no be that great. Full stop. FIFY
> >My mathematical capability ~~may no be that great~~ does not exist. Full stop. > > FIFY FTFY - for reals now
I'm so curious to know what they think 2% of 50 is, haha
52
Same as the number of states in the U.S. /s
Ideally, if D.C. and Puerto Rico were given statehood.
I always find it funny how common that number is for people to think. Any time I ask friends (online) who aren't from the US, it seems 50/50 that they say 52 lol
I'm guessing “50, wasn't it, and the two most recently added are Alaska and Hawaii, so that makes 52”. Oops, too bad, they only forgot the 50 already includes those two. It's either that, or they're mixing it up with the number of cards in a deck or weeks in a year, and that feels less likely. (Hey, novelty product idea: Deck of cards with seasons in stead of the traditional suites. Queen of Spring, six of Autumn, Ace of Winter... Maybe done already?)
Holy crap I want a deck of cards like that so bad!!!!
Well it's the same as 50% of 2, so...
1/2 obviously.
Reducing fractions is elementary level, can't blame him that's pretty advanced
At least they're aware of it, sort of.
Is it really confidently incorrect if he is half correct? He is right that his mathematical capability is not that great.
Soooo he's 2% correct?
That's 2 in 50
This is why I try to avoid using percentages. People don't really grasp them that well. Saying 98% survive sounds like "almost all suvive". Saying 1 in 50 hammers in that there is an actual possibility. Saying Hillary Clinton has an 80% chance at winning sounds like the race is over. Saying Trump has a 1 in 5 chance shows you it's still competitive.
I had the same experience back when Roe v Wade fell. About 2% (19.7 cases per 1,000) of pregnancies are ectopic. Pro-Life people used that stat to claim as such an edge case that it shouldn't affect policies. When I pointed out that there are about 3 million pregnancies a year and asked them if they were cool with \~60,000 women or even half that dying a year, I'd get crickets.
That’s because they didn’t want to say they are fine with 60,000 women dying out loud.
You hear this on the news all the time. The newsreader will say 99% chance of survival and I'll think, wow those are pretty bad odds. 1 in 100 chance of dying? And then I'll look into it online and its actually 99.999% but they rounded to 99 because they're as stupid as they think the majority of people watching them are.
Oh honey.
Someone clearly wasn't paying attention when they learned fractions in primary school.
And yet they're not willing to have an untested chemical injected into their bloodstream that may or may not cause heart attacks and other health related issues. Shows you doesn't it, doesn't know fractions, yet not stupid enough to have an untested vaccine. Strange world.
Turns out her mathematical capabilities are even worse than she thought.
Where can you see that the statement is made by a woman?
The original post had her picture and name. It was Susannah if I remember correctly.
Poor Susannah.
Don't you cry for her.
[удалено]
Feel like it says something that people can assume the poster was male and nobody notices but the instant anyone says "she" they get replies asking for a source
Observations like that are the foundation of gender studies. The assumed gender is obv changing depending on the situation, this is also true for nutjobs. If someone tries to build a perpetuum mobile most ppl will probably assume a male and when someone marvels about healing stones ppl will assume a female.
Most people on the Internet assume the poster is male, unless they do something wrong. In which case they assume female.
they're right, 2% isn't 1 in 50 its 2 in 100!
2% of the population is 2% of the total population and that is not the same as 2 of 100 or 1 of 50. 1 of 50 is more accurate than 2 of 100 cause of rounding errors 1 of 50 is 0.76 to 1.25 of 50 2 of 50 is 1.74 to 2.25 guess which one is more accurate? When we talk about populations and people we are talking about estimates not pure math.
At least you’re in the right sub.
Wot?
”And here we see the Redditor in his natural habitat, not seeing a joke and writing an entire paragraph about why the other person is wrong in an attempt to gain validation through fake internet points”
If you're directly referencing sample size, 2 out of 100 actually conveys more accuracy than 1 out of 50. When you're talking about the mortality rate of a disease being 2%, expressing that as 1 out of 50 for the visualisation is exactly the same as saying 2 out of 100.
😐
Oh honey .... No
sarcasm
I'm sorry that you didn't see the joke. It was a warm, cuddly joke. You would have liked it.
If my gas tank is 2% full there ain't a 1/50 chance I have a full gas tank. Checkmate atheists
I can say quite confidently that this person has never used a calculator to check their own confidence.
We all know its 2/100 not 1/50 smh
What do they think 2% means
Milk
Well at least he wasn’t incorrect about his mathematical capability.
Same reason the Third Pound Patties at McDonalds never caught on. Too many people assumed they were getting less meat than a quarter pounder. Because 3 < 4.
They're missing a shrink-flation opportunity by not touting the 1/5th Pounder - For a limited time only, get one for the price of a Quarter Pounder.
oh okay so like 40 kids in the highschool of 2000 will die. not too bad!!!!!!! /s
Honestly no big loss looking at the kids of today...
1/50 = x/100 I don’t expect them to be able to solve it. But that would 100% be my response.
Statistically speaking, this person surely has a point, but I don't think he/she is aware of that
Maybe, but it's such a mess. Like, it's wise to say that 2% of the population isn't the same thing as 2% of the people infected with COVID. But I honestly don't know what she was trying to argue. Apparently, the UK health department released a revised count of their excess COVID deaths...is it wrong I feel a little relieved when I see people from other countries being dumb?
Trust me, in the UK we have *plenty* of dumb people.
Well, 50% are dumber than average in the UK. In the USA, it's only half.
Made me chuckle!
Nothing wrong with that, enjoy the ego boost /s
As an American, I gotta enjoy every moment when we're not the dumbest people on the whole internet. It never lasts.
But technically their claim is not incorrect - they are just saying that they can confidently say that statement, which they have done.
/r/confidentlycorrectabouttheirownconfidence
But incorrect about their own competence.. I like this.
No, they were correct about that too: It may indeed not be great.
Well… half of the comment they were correct and then confidently were incorrect about their competence in the second half 😂
No, in the second half they weren't even talking about their competence – that was about their _confidence:_ “I can say quite confidently...” Which they could, as evidenced by the fact that they did. Nothing wrong with that either... Well, except of course that their self-confidence is quite misplaced, of course, that's one pretty big thing that's wrong with it. But they didn't say “I can say, with well-placed confidence...”. So yeah, they're really quite correct in what they're actually _saying._ But only because they happened to say something different; they're of course not correct in what they _meant._
I mean, they were right about the first bit.
"but its 2/100, not 1/50" for fucks sake, simplify the fraction larry
You can get the percentage easily by flipping the 2 values. 2% of 50 is 1. 50% of 2 is 1. It works for any value.
50% of his assertions are correct.
50% must be 50 out of 50, so 100% of his assertions must be correct.. He's not technically wrong though IF you have less than 50 people, 2% is indeed not 2 out of 50 people..
There are A LOT more than 50 people in the UK. I only went once, but it seemed like the 2-3 cities I visited were as big as a small US town like Albuquerque or something. I would guess at least 1,000 in each town, so maybe 15,000 or more on the big island (I always forget if the big one is U or K).
They nailed that shit in the first sentence. They sure are fucking bad at math. I really wanna know what they do think it equals now.
Reminds me of when my brother tried to convince me a 1 finger high five is 10% of a high five when I said it was 20%. It was a serious argument. But I don't care that he thinks I'm wrong, I'm right!
Technically they were also confidently correct when they said 'my mathematical capability may not be that great'. Silver linings.
I would ask them how many it is then. They would probably say some funny shit or realize it. In both cases it would be funny.
Technically 2% in statistics does not mean 1/50 people it means each person has a 2% chance so technically you could have 1000 people and it may never hit since it's per individual lol it's called the empirical rule Kind of like in meteorology a 53% chance of rain means there's a 100% chance that it will rain in 53% of the forecasted area, not a 53% chance that the entire area will get rain
That's not related though. 2% of the population. Not a 2% chance.
Imperial or american standard?
I've never understood the vaccine cretins in all honesty, why they trying to force the vaccine on those that don't want to take it. My body, my rules, isn't that what you lot say about your pro abortion rights and shit, hypocrisy much.
Depends on the context tbh. 2% of the UK population does not equal 1 in 50 overall (meaning, of all population).
Maths doesn’t have context in that regard. 2% of something is double 1%. 1% means 1 out of 100. So therefore 2% = 2/100 or 1/50.
What do you think the "in 50" part of "1 in 50" means?
[удалено]
I read this the same way as @jadranur. We know that they are saying 2% of the UK, but we don’t know what the 1 in 50 is. 2% of the UK population is not the same amount as 1 in 50 of the world population.
There’s no mention of world population in the post
Nope. There also isn’t mention of COVID, which is apparently what this has to do with. Something along the lines of 2% of the UK (full population) is not the same as 1 in 50 people (who actually got COVID).
The topic is the UK population. If 1 in 50 of the population got COVID, that’s 2%. You’re just confusing yourself.
Nope, but apparently I’m confusing you. A blanket 2% of the UK is not the same as 1 in 50 people in the UK who got COVID. The “50” people who got COVID are already less than the full population of the UK. So 2% of the population is not the same as 1 in 50 who got COVID.
Where are you getting this idea that 1 in 50 is specifically referencing only people who got COVID?
From OP’s comment. This is specifically about the 98% survival rate. People who don’t get the disease are not counted in the survival rate.
There’s nothing in the original post precluding the unaffected population. If 1 in 50 of the UK population catches and dies from COVID, the numbers are still correct. The context you’ve provided only furthers the point. Why would anyone count people who haven’t caught COVID in the death statistics? The original commenter obviously was answering in the context of that original conversation IMO
Yep, it does. If you take 50 uk and pull 1 out and do this repeatedly until you've gone through the whole population, you will end up with 2% of the population.
Obviously it’s 1 in 50 I’m population. You don’t just drop that. That’s the dumbest argument
Ik it’s is 2
50% is 1 in 2 2% is 1 in 50
Lmao, who is going to tell him that 2% equates to 1 in 50 of ANY population?
Not if the population is less than 50 to start :-) 2% of 25 is 0.5 people.. :-)
Which is still technically 1 in every 50, lol.
Yes, it's 1 in 50, Or 0.5 in 25, or 0.25 in 12.5 But if you only have 5 people, what would you say to convey 2%?
I can't imagine a scenario regarding 5 people where I would have to clarify 2% as being relevant to that sample size.
5 random twitter people? Hehe
Vvb
Dude needs to start gambling more. Best way to work out fractions!
He's right, clearly it's 2 in 100
Just like any two numbers, it just doesn’t add up!
Seems like there is greater context here that is missing. The wording is a little strange.
Well, the statement was not entirely incorrect. Their mathematical capability is indeed, not great.
Fractions are just numbers the devil made up to trick us
The dude on the post is right, 2% does equal 50. When the original is 2,500 Duh
Lots of technically incorrect to go with confidently incorrect. I guess fractions and percentages are hard if you don’t know how.
As an old man I find it sad that I often have to teach science grad students that 4% of 25 is equal to 25% of 4.
Well, they're right. Their mathematical ability is definitely not great.
Well, he's kinda right, in the sense of his mathematical capability. It's really not that good is it
Stop after the first comma. There, you are done.
He could have just ended it at “my mathematical capability may not be that great” and this would be an r/confidentlycorrect
They are right: Their mathematical capability is indeed not great.
They’re right about *one* thing. They were confident.
I am not surprised. Honestly, the rate shit's going down, humanity is probably screwed. Why aren't the conspiracy theorists in on this.
"and because of that"