4 ms·
To me, his last paragraph was the most important part. We've seen that the case rate increases dramatically as more tests are administered. This is implying a
by jsight 7y ago
To me, his last paragraph was the most important part. We've seen that the case rate increases dramatically as more tests are administered.
This is implying a very strong selection bias in the past testing towards the most severe cases. The mortality rates are certainly much lower than these estimates.
- Rury 7y ago>We've seen that the case rate increases dramatically as more tests are administered Is that really true though? The UK has administered some of the most tests at over 7,119 but only 13 confirmed cases. US has done a measly 445 tests, yet 60 cases? Might be things are just starting to ramp up, and yet we're behind on testing...
- belltaco 7y ago>US has done a measly 445 tests, yet 60 cases? I think the US tests were much more targeted to those most likely to have contracted it. Like US citizens returning from Wuhan/Hubei.
- Rury 7y agoYeah that makes sense, although that would be a selection bias towards most likely cases, not necessarily most severe. Although China's data is most likely to be biased towards most severe...
- jsight 7y agoIts very possible that I was incorrect. I now realize that my statement was based on something someone told me, and I can't find original sources. I do continue to believe that the real cases are much higher than the reported cases, though, and many of these unreported cases are the ones with the mildest symptoms. This will continue to skew statistics for some period of time.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- hanniabu 7y agoThere's also reports that if somebody is dead then they won't treat them due to limited resources, they'll just ship them to the crematorium. Because of this I'd expect the 3% rate to hold at the very least, if not slightly increase.