Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 7939616" data-attributes="member: 177">It looks like working backwards: assume a 1.6% mortality rate.&nbsp; If you have X deaths, those deaths are 1.6% of the infected population.How many cases have you identified?&nbsp; Compare that to this theoretical infected population.&nbsp; The difference is what's not being counted.This rides heavily on the estimated mortality rate, which is an estimate, of a virus we don't have a great handle on yet.&nbsp; So, it should be taken with a grain of salt.On the flip side, yes, we are probably missing most of the cases - our ability to test is not really up to snuff, and my understanding is that until very recently, testing was limited to those who had traveled to known infected areas (like northern Italy) and people who had direct contact with diagnosed carriers.&nbsp; If you didn't meet those criteria, but had symptoms, you weren't tested, because the number of tests that could be performed was very limited.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 7939616, member: 177"] It looks like working backwards: assume a 1.6% mortality rate. If you have X deaths, those deaths are 1.6% of the infected population. How many cases have you identified? Compare that to this theoretical infected population. The difference is what's not being counted. This rides heavily on the estimated mortality rate, which is [I]an estimate[/I], of a virus we don't have a great handle on yet. So, it should be taken with a grain of salt. On the flip side, yes, we are probably missing most of the cases - our ability to test is not really up to snuff, and my understanding is that until very recently, testing was limited to those who had traveled to known infected areas (like northern Italy) and people who had direct contact with diagnosed carriers. If you didn't meet those criteria, but had symptoms, you weren't tested, because the number of tests that could be performed was very limited. [/QUOTE]

Verification