[elihu]

I suppose limitations on testing are going to make the official numbers less useful going forward, not that they were taken as anything but a very rough lower bound so far.

I mean, the Johns Hopkins map shows 13 infections in Ohio, and you have the director of the Ohio Department of Health saying it's 100,000. How do we know if either are anywhere close to right?

Presumably when things get bad it'll be impossible to hide it, as the hospitals will be over capacity. That's already happened in Wuhan and China, and probably Iran and some other places as well.

It would be nice if we had some sort of indication of where a particular region is on the scale from "hardly anyone has this yet" to "we're experiencing rampant community spread" that's more trustworthy/accurate than the official numbers.

[jpster]

>It would be nice [...]

Here is data where “Total” is meant to represent the number tested. Ideally we would see this also represented as a percentage of the local population.

https://covidtracking.com/notes/