@bored said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:
It's worth pointing out that the %'s are very guesswork-y and vary considerably between reporting institution, so hanging on single % changes is not particularly meaningful (apparently people were accusing my governor of conspiracy theory-esque minimizing the threat because he quoted a lower %, but it was simply from a different source). These are also likely to be higher than the actual mortality rate, because people who are mildly or non-symptomatic account for the bulk of cases yet rarely make it into the statistics at all.
They are valuable in a comparative sense because other illnesses are measured the same way, with the same flaws, and these %s are an order of magnitude higher than typical flu mortality.
The percentages also vary considerably by age group.
For people under 40, the mortality rate is around 0.2%, and the WHO has said that 80% of people who contract the disease will experience only very mild symptoms. I'm under 40, live in a crowded city, am in excellent physical health, and lately I've been sniffling a bit. For all I know I could've already contracted it and just not know it. Most of the people hoarding obsessively really don't need to, and I'm not going to. I'm pretty sure I'll be just fine; I'm more worried about the risk of infecting other people, if I do (or have) contract(ed) it.
For people over 80 however, the risk is 14.8% — 21.9% (total estimate, vs. based only on confirmed cases). It's also killing men more than women, and is significantly higher for people with preexisting health conditions like heart disease.
So while the overall mortality rate is 2% — 3.4%, that's not a useful number for anyone looking to evaluate their or their loved ones' personal risk. It's mostly just useful for estimating what chunk of the population we're likely to see wiped out by the numbers.
Keep your grandparents home safe, fam.