www.healthdata.org
I'm betting 800,000ish by the end of it
Basic math. If you're looking at 25% of the population being infected and 0.8% of those dies, you get 660,000 deaths. I'm betting way more than that get infected, and that the death rate is lower
I have never based my data on partisan lines. I used the Diamond Princess as my gauge for roughly how deadly this would be as it was a statistically significant population size of which 100% was tested. Iceland is providing much more broad data on a more diverse population and is probably a better indicator of true mortality rate, as they have tested more than 10% of the country. They have by far the best testing strategy (wide population testing of entire communities regardless of symptoms) and datasets in the world ar current. Their data gives us roughly 0.46% mortality rate. At the bare minimum level of her immunity that might provide protection (around 60%) that gives us around 911,000 deaths nationwide.This is the million dollar question...is the infection mortality rate known or has it come into focus yet? Molecular confirmation testing has been limited to overtly symptomatic patient populations. What if the denominator is much wider? Such an argument has been making the rounds on conservative media outlets. I hate to say this, but the partisan progressive/conservative psychological fault line appears to be framing what should be a purely objective scientific epidemiological discussion.
Why a study showing that covid-19 is everywhere is good news
If millions of people were infected weeks ago without dying, the virus must be less deadly than official data suggestwww.economist.com
www.worldometers.info
This is the million dollar question...is the infection mortality rate known or has it come into focus yet? Molecular confirmation testing has been limited to overtly symptomatic patient populations. What if the denominator is much wider? Such an argument has been making the rounds on conservative media outlets. I hate to say this, but the partisan progressive/conservative psychological fault line appears to be framing what should be a purely objective scientific epidemiological discussion.
Why a study showing that covid-19 is everywhere is good news
If millions of people were infected weeks ago without dying, the virus must be less deadly than official data suggest
It is if you suspect that asymptomatic patients are spreading disease. To date, all evidence points to this being true. If you only test symptomatic patients, you miss an entire portion of the positive population that can be spreading disease and thus is relevant.
It is at least 4% (for the cohort symptomatic enough to get tested). It usually takes at least 2 weeks to die from COVID-19. A lot of the positive patients are still relatively early in the course of the infection. Even if 50% of infected people are asymptomatic, the mortality is still through the roof.
It is true that the death is a delayed effect (I mentioned this above). Given that the mortality rate continues to trickle upwards suggests that you are correct and is likely to be higher. However, given that new cases is trending downward, it is also possible that we have already seen the peak of new patients and thus 10-14 days from 4/4-4/18 (i.e., soon) we may have a fairly accurate overall mortality rate.
I agree. I think 10-14 days from today we will have a pretty good estimate of the mortality rate. If we assume that nearly all fatalities we have seen so far represent patients who were diagnosed 10 days ago or prior (when we had approximately 300k cases), the mortality rate is somewhere between 8-10% for the cohort symptomatic enough to get tested. Even if 50% of the cases are subclinical, it still translates into an overall mortality rate of 4-5%.
Understood, but a false positive patient can't spread disease and is thus not relevant.
