[OJFord]

I have no idea; it's not a job I envy.

But what I read in the UK was that looking increasingly like 'about 50%' would be infected, 'but only 30%' of those would actually need medical attention. Something similar came from the US with '40-70%' instead of 'about 50'.

But yes, a large part of the concern, particularly for government bodies coming out with these figures is preparedness; so they probably are erring on the side of 'more resources needed' in these estimates. But why not? Better over-prepared than under, not that that's looking likely.