[moralestapia]

>there would already be much more deaths than there is now

Why? People can be sick for quite some time (in this case, a month, maybe?) and then ultimately die from the disease, this is actually like ... the most common scenario ...

I have been unpleasantly surprised by how much people struggle to understand this simple concept. Recovered / (recovered+death) is how you do it. It's common sense, come on ...

[caconym_]

Since we are in early days and it probably takes longer to recover than to die of it, and the reporting of infections and recoveries and deaths coming out of China is likely undercounting all three due to different systematic factors, I think it's too early for the results of that formula to be taken at face value.

In the end, when everything is tallied up, sure. But in the meantime, in the presence of so much uncertainty, "common sense" is only going to lead you astray.

[moralestapia]

I agree with you that the correct answer is "we have to wait more".

[stale2002]

> I have been unpleasantly surprised by how much people struggle to understand this simple concept. Recovered / (recovered+death) is how you do it.

The mistake that you are making in your "simple math equation" is as follows. It is easier to count the number of deaths than it is to count the number of recovered. This messes up your math.

If you miscount a large amount on your recovered numbers, then this will make the death rate look worse than it actually is.

[marcosdumay]

> People can be sick for quite some time (in this case, a month, maybe?) and then ultimately die from the disease

Usually, not from a viral infection. The usual scenario from a viral infection is that if you are not dead in 2 weeks, you will almost certainly recover.

There are exceptions, but nothing I've read about this virus leads to the conclusion that it is one of those.

[cmendel]

Yes, but the incubation period on this one is 14 days. That changes the calculus.

[marcosdumay]

Well, that delays things from the infection point. But doesn't change anything from the point where people notice they are sick.

Anyway, this is a disease that spreads very widely very quickly. We are arguing about the known numbers when the most likely scenario is that it is already everywhere but not reported, so the known numbers are only noise.

[jmnicolas]

I think it's meaningless to make stats on unknown things. We have no idea how many of the infected people will die.

The only thing we can say is : as of now the survival rate is 98%. It will probably go down, nobody knows how much.

[allovernow]

How did you calculate 98% from the available figures when the vast majority of cases are less than a week old?