[CrazyStat]

> On the flip side, it's very likely that mild cases will never be reported, which in turn would decrease the mortality rate.

Indeed. This calculation ignores severe underreporting of mild cases--for example, Johns Hopkins researchers (the same ones who made that map you linked to for data) estimated that only ~10% of cases in mainland China (mostly Wuhan at the time) were being reported [1]. That would put the mortality rate at under 1%, which is close to the evidence we have from elsewhere (e.g. the Diamond Princess).

dead / (recovered + dead) is only a reasonable estimate if you actually have good numbers for the recovered count. We don't, so it's irresponsible to use it.

[1] https://systems.jhu.edu/research/public-health/ncov-model-2/

[Alex3917]

> That would put the mortality rate at under 1%, which is close to the evidence we have from elsewhere (e.g. the Diamond Princess).

Since it takes 3+ weeks to die from this illness, we're not going to know the fatality rate from the diamond princess for another month. And that's still going to be a lower bound since they'll all be getting medical care from often before they're even diagnosed.

[learc83]

>And that's still going to be a lower bound since they'll all be getting medical care from often before they're even diagnosed.

It's not a lower bound because cruise ships skew much older than the general population. All 4 who have died so far have been in their 80s.

[Alex3917]

Good point. That you can at least try to correct for to match various populations though.

[nswest23]

We know the percentage of people who are in critical condition and it's very low.