DarioMartin wrote on Thu Mar 26, 2020 4:13pm:
Ummmmmm ..... that doesn’t actually make sense? 🤔
Whoopydo opined that 70% of the worst affected were overweight ..... that means 30% weren’t .... offering figures for the percentage of population that is overweight doesn’t suddenly mean that that figure is reversed ... even if at the lower end of the scale, we accept that 72% of over 45s ar...
Read more...
...e overweight, that doesn’t somehow mean the statement that 70% of the worst affected are overweight means more non-overweight people are affected ..... it means simply, as it states, that a larger percentage of overweight people as compared to non-overweight are more severely affected ...
It is not affecting overweight people more, it is just that there are more overweight people in the first place.
If 70% of affected people are overweight while 72% of the underlying population are overweight, then proportionately slightly more non-overweight people are being affected (for the sake of this discussion I am not challenging the underlying 70% assumption).
Take a population of 1000 people, 720 of whom are overweight and 280 are not. Assume you have 100 people in this population who are ill, 70 of them are overweight and 30 are not. That means 70 out of 720 (9.7%) overweight people are ill, while 30 out of 280 (10.7%) non-overweight people are ill.
It is therefore not correct to say that "a larger percentage of overweight people as compared to non-overweight are more severely affected", it is better to say that about 70% of people in the UK are overweight, and coronavirus doesn't seem to care much about the bmi of who it affects. If the figures were more extreme, if say 90% of the population of the UK were overweight, then if only 70% of coronavirus sufferers were overweight that would be very bad news indeed for the non-overweight population.