5 ms·
It's definitely still "less likely" that a death goes unreported versus an infection without a death. Both numbers are shit, but deaths likely less so.
by MikeAmelung 7y ago
It's definitely still "less likely" that a death goes unreported versus an infection without a death. Both numbers are shit, but deaths likely less so.
- aledalgrande 7y agoI think deaths might be unreliable too, because 1) we don't know the mortality rate, we're extrapolating it from bad data and then using an extrapolated number to calculate a trend and 2) mortality rate would change between different groups, e.g. sick and old people vs healthy people, depending how infections spread.
- spuz 7y agoThat's why we're talking about deaths, not mortality. Mortality requires you to know the number of people who are infected which as stated above can be inaccurate because many people are not getting tested. However, it's less likely that a person who dies of pneumonia in hospital won't be tested. Also, there is likely to be a smaller proportion of deaths happening outside of hospitals than there are infections so you should consider the number of deaths to be more accurate than the number of cases.
- akiselev 7y ago> That's why we're talking about deaths, not mortality. I believe you're confusing fatality and mortality. The correct version of that statement is: "That's why we're talking about mortality, not fatality. The case fatality rate is the ratio of number of deaths to the number of people who are confirmed to have the disease (which depends a lot on standard of care, reporting, and bureaucratic integrity) whereas mortality rate is the rate of deaths in general.
- gadders 7y agoDeaths are also unreliable because a) COVID-19 deaths are being reported differently as a notifiable disease (in the UK at least) as compared to, say, influenza and b) autopies are not being carried out on COVID-19 cases due to how contagious it is.