2 ms·
How do you figure that? Going off this source I see 170 deaths and 133 recovered. So of those 303 that have been infected with it, 170 have died which is 56%. Y
by hanniabu 7y ago
How do you figure that? Going off this source I see 170 deaths and 133 recovered. So of those 303 that have been infected with it, 170 have died which is 56%. You can't count the other 7783 that are currently infected since we haven't seen their outcome yet.
https://gisanddata.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6 https://gisanddata.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.h...
- thedufer 7y agoThe estimate requires some extrapolation based on other epidemics. Dying from it isn't going to take as long as recovering so you should expect a particularly large skew this early. But more generally you'd expect more mild cases to go underreported, be a lower priority for testing (which seems to be the bottleneck for reporting cases in some areas), etc.
- GistNoesis 7y agoThis is not the right way of counting it. If it takes 40 days to be declared fully recovered, the recovered number is going to stay low at least 40 days (even though the people on their way to full recovery will most likely survive), while the death number will be increasing from the pool of people which became infected later. To count it properly you need to follow what happened to people infected at the same date.
- hanniabu 7y agoInteresting, that makes sense!