It's there, you just didn't read it.
The number of people on earth isn't relevant when calculating the risks of dying in a commercial air crash.
The first sentence yielded a search for some of the most addled-pated back-of-the-envelope slop I've ever seen trotted out here. All you're apparently capable of is calculating a rate for a very low exposure to death by aviation disaster.
This is simply irrelevant to a discussion of COVID-19. Next it's "why don't
you calculate" blah blah blah regarding COVID-19. "Why don't
you calculate..." indeed.
Tell you what, since you apparently believe that prospectively accounting for massive unknowns using a few months of an exponentially growing pandemic spread is exactly comparable to reviewing decades of knowns in aviation, why don't we review the knowns of COVID again.
I don't like the global conceit here, because almost all NFL players are U.S. nationals.
But are the known facts.
Again.
Coronavirus Update (Live): 18,220,203 Cases and 692,325 Deaths from COVID-19 Virus Pandemic - Worldometer
As of this writing. (note how much more important it is to note this than in the case of Aviation. In fact, it takes longer to collect the effing data in aviation than the entire length of this pandemic to date.)
Coronavirus Cases:
18,219,002
view by country
Deaths:
692,309
Recovered:
11,435,236
ACTIVE CASES
6,091,457
Currently Infected Patients
6,025,656 (99%)
in Mild Condition
65,801 (1%)
Serious or Critical
CLOSED CASES
12,127,545
Cases which had an outcome:
11,435,236 (94%)
Recovered / Discharged
692,309 (6%)
Deaths
So, there's your comparison. 6% of known cases resolved in death, worldwide. Only 1% of cases are
presently serious or critical. Whether 6% will eventually die within this cohort is unknown.
The known fact is that 6% have died in resolved cases to date.
Next time you run across an airline that survives after killing
either 1% or 6% of its customers, you let us know champ.
Now, do you want to distort these numbers with guesswork?
Or were you errantly assuming that the clever thing to do to minimize this deadly pathogen is to randomly combine the
present number of deaths by, for whatever reason, the population of the Earth?
Once again, one pertinent difference is that you don't know how many people have COVID-19. You do know, roughly, how many people took trips on commercial aircraft. (Actually, you only know how many trips people took. But that's orders of magnitude less important than the error of attempting to compare the future outcomes of an exponentially growing pathogen with several years of known data about aviation.)
There ya go, sport, I calculated the rates for you. What TF did you imagine your point to be?
By the way, if you were only trying to be wrong about aviation accident rate fluctuation over time, you'd have covered that base as well. It's
absolutely relevant that aviation reached an unprecedented era of safety in the past few years, only to have that rate (or absolute numbers) terribly distorted by a two-jumbo-jet spike -- especially when these had an uncharacteristic common factor in AOA indicators and flight control software rules. While manufacturers liked to say that flight crews should have been sharper, even when they were, they ended up having to physically fight against the airplane. The point being that there was something broken that had to be fixed -- quite a different state of affairs than, for example, an insufficiently trained pilot. I point this out because so many aviation disasters end up being much more about what individuals
could have done to avert the accident. In the case of the 737 Max, the global fleet ended up having to be grounded (which doesn't happen if, for example, a flight crew member just selects the wrong airport code in a flight management computer leading to an accident sequence.)
Why rates change, especially with very low rates that are therefore very sensitive to single accidents, is also at
least as important as the fact that the rate changed. That's why we have accident investigation agencies. It's idiotic to hold that intra-period fluctuation in aviation fatality rates is "irrelevant."
But it's
absolutely the case that your original comparison is way off base, unless you're trying to prove that caution is not only indicated on behalf of the players, but in fact that the disease is not being taken seriously enough.
