3 ms·
Here's a quote from the first link you have: "That means the total number of reported cases is very likely an underestimate—and by not counting many mild or as
by psychlops 7y ago
Here's a quote from the first link you have:
"That means the total number of reported cases is very likely an underestimate—and by not counting many mild or asymptomatic cases, we’re likely overestimating the disease’s overall mortality rate."
It is not possible to know the mortality rate with the information we have. Extrapolating that dubious number into a prediction of deaths is not a meaningful exercise.
- disgruntledphd2 7y agoTo be fair, they are using 1% which is an underestimate given what we know right now. In general, with exponential growth the best time to act was yesterday.
- psychlops 7y agoThe only reliable number are deaths assuming people aren't hiding (or burning) the bodies. The number of tests are reliable among themselves, but we can't necessarily compare specificity and sensitivity of the tests against each other. Maybe those numbers are out there, but i haven't seen them. The amount of infected is not and will not ever be known and it's a dark time for statistics when many are taking the non-randomly tested and dividing by fatalities and projecting deaths on large populations. Exponential growth is how successful infections progress. There is nothing new to see here. This sort of aggressive strain was easily foreseeable years ago and we rely on strategic, planned measures to be executed by government. Random, localized shutdowns only serve to exacerbate the unwarranted panic we are now seeing. The time to think was years in the coming, the actions now display an enormous failure in leadership.