Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (542056)	1/8/2010 1:48:07 PM
From: RetiredNow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578468

No, I called it the pediatric death rate. Also, you are correct in saying that I said in my first post that I had read somewhere that the death rate was 3 times higher. I knew it was higher, but I was just guessing at the amount higher, because it was an opinion post. But when you asked for evidence, I looked it up and found that it was higher, but by 41%, not by 3 times higher. Still it is higher. Also, the flaw in your thinking is that even though you are correct in saying I divided the pediatric deaths by the total flu cases, the rate is still valid for comparison against non-H1N1, because I used the same methodology for each. I had to do it that way, because the CDC does not break out the figures for pediatric cases. But if you knew anything about math, you'd realize that as long as you use the same denominator across comparison groups, the comparison difference will be the same. The reason is that when you divide one by the other, the denominator is factored out, you goof. For example. If you take 3/5 divided by 1/5, you get 3. But if you change the denominator and take 3/10 divided by 1/10, you still get 3! You aren't thinking clearly on this one, Ten. Why don't you just admit that you were wrong and that it is true that H1N1 has a higher death rate than regular flu?