>>11504052WSJ had an article today doing some basic napkin math on closed populations to estimate cases. They came up with .005% potentially, with millions of cases spreading since January.
I appreciate the simplicity of basic extrapolations as much as the next guy, but if really has spread that heavily:
1. Why hasn't China been having tens of thousands of aysmptomatic positives while testing?
2. Hospitals in regions where community spread was first confirmed didn't be getting face raped just threw weeks later, this shit was supposedly everywhere before now. But they are getting face raped.
Plus, the same extrapolation would also apply to the Princess, where you had a shit ton of old people in a super social setting, locked together, and 11% got infected at all.
Seems like hunting to be a bull. As death rates pile up, the bears seem right. Bulls want a model to show they were right, and reduce congnitive dissonance. As sample size expands with more testing, and testing of less sick people, the only way to assume a low fatality rate is to assume increasingly more uncounted cases. But now we've moved into the almost laughable scenerio of assuming millions of cases and millions of resolved cases, despite clear links where we can tie a single outbreak to a surge in hospital cases 2-3 incubation periods later.
They also seem to assume Italy is putting out perfect data in a crisis and that testing is being done without error.
Fact is no one really knows. Saying it's 5% fatal or half as fatal as flu at this point is asinine.
