> and death is a lagging indicator, If you think or raise so, then you're measuring wrong; and to me, it feels everybody is measuring death rates wrong. Let

> and death is a lagging indicator, If you think or raise so, then you're measuring wrong; and to me, it feels everybody is measuring death rates wrong. Let me elaborate. Let's say you're a teacher and you do a "test-type" exam (the true/false ones whose score you can verify with a machine, real quick) to 100 students. If after 30minutes of ongoing examination, 10 students have finished already, and let's say you check how many have passed: 9. The way the world is measuring, as an analogy, is saying that the "fail rate" of the exam is 1%, while it's actually "10% so far". When you measure success/failure, you have to take in account only people that finished. Therefore it's crucial to compare recovered vs death cases, and not take the "current cases" into account. Still, if we correct the death rates numbers to use this method, it'll be not accurate, because there are many cases which are untested and therefore many recoveries that are not taken in account (although some deaths too).