Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

this old news
we discussed this in detail previously
no reason to think this virus is more then .5 to .7% deaths to positive

But the percentage for flu is something like 0.1%, isn't it?
If so, that means that this is 5 to 7 times as deadly as the average flu.

I dont think theres much question virus deaths are under reported but so are positive cases so no one really can be sure what the real death rate is

Perfect is the enemy of good.

Sure, we can't be certain of the death rate, but we can estimate.  For instance, we know that about 13 out of every 1000 New Yorkers has died from COVID.  That's not infected New Yorkers, that's ALL New Yorkers.  This means, even if 100% of all New Yorkers have already caught the disease, it has already surpassed the flu's death rate of 0.1%.  

In reality we know that far less than 100% of New Yorkers have had COVID.  Which leads to my math above.

This also assumes adequate medical care.  New York hasn't seen their hospitals reach their breaking point.  When that happens we can expect a far higher death rate.  Italy, for example.

https://reason.com/2020/04/17/covid-19-lethality-not-much-different-than-flu-says-new-study/

I'm not posting this because I trust the numbers.

Using these data, the researchers calculated the infection fatality rate, that is, the percent of people infected with the disease who die: "A hundred deaths out of 48,000-81,000 infections corresponds to an infection fatality rate of 0.12-0.2%," they report.* That's about the same infection fatality rate the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates for seasonal influenza.

The researchers conclude:

You should read the *Update* at the bottom of your link above.

The mortality rate has been estimated all over the place obviously.  The early estimates tended to be high, 3.4% was one I recall.  I don't think we know.

The various reports that far more people have antibodies than ever had symptoms is interesting.  We need more data.

The Dispatch, a conservative site, has been citing known deaths-to-known infections week-daily, and the rate has been rising to the neighborhood of 5-6%.  They issue the regular disclaimer that that is an artificially high figure, as testing has only scratched the surface of those probably infected.

Here is Friday's summary:

As of Thursday night, there are now 1,069,424 confirmed cases of COVID-19 in the United States (an increase of 29,515/2.8 percent since yesterday) and 62,996 deaths (an increase of 2,029/3.3 percent increase since yesterday), according to the Johns Hopkins University COVID-19 Dashboard, leading to a mortality rate among confirmed cases of 5.9 percent (the true mortality rate is likely much lower, but it’s impossible to determine precisely due to incomplete testing regimens). Of 6,231,182 coronavirus tests conducted in the United States (205,012 conducted since yesterday), 17.2 percent have come back positive. Meanwhile, 153,947 have recovered from the virus (an increase of 33,227/27.5 percent since yesterday).

If I had to GUESS, I'd say in the US the figure is about 1% plus or minus about 99%.  I'm joking about the + -.

I am however not sure if we aren't undercounting deaths significantly.  I'd go with one percent as a very crude guess at this point.

The update does not alter this particular estimate of mortality rates.  The figure may be wrong, obviously, but it exists, it is an example of one estimate that is close to seasonal flu.

OK, well first things to know.  reason is not a quality source, and they cherry picked data from a valid scientific study to meet their narrative.  The scientific study they cite makes no claims of a 0.1% fatality rate.

For example, you don't count total deaths at the moment when there are still thousands of sick people.  Since then, Santa Clara has 114 deaths reported, which is more than 3x the deaths at the time of this article. 

Here's the link to the actual scientific study:  https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.14.20062463v2

 The figure may be wrong, obviously, but it exists,

Can we all agree that when this is the case, it's NOT something that should be shared?  C'mon, man.