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

I don't know anything about Reason as a source, which is why I hedged.  But it IS an "estimate" that is quite low.  It may be wrong, may be from a bad source, but it is an estimate by some folks with some pedigree.

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

The question asked was whether ANY estimates were below 0.8%.  I provided one.

Massive scale testing sounds fine though obviously a lot of people simply won't get tested no matter what.

If I'm asymptomatic, I'm not going to get tested, most people will think.

And of course you can be tested negative and get infected 5 minutes later.  Key personnel should be tested, no doubt.

Rep pop testing of a sample would be useful.  I don't think we can realistically expect to test 327 million people.

  

regular testing tells us nothing

if we could magically test everyone instantly it is only a point in time so we gain little information

antibody testing is what we need and a lot of it

New York City population 8,000,000

Virus deaths reported for NYC 13,000

% = .16%

so what weve already estimated the actual death rate is between .5 and .8%

so what did we prove

I'm not following you here.

Let's take your numbers.  As of this exact moment, 16 out of every 10,000 New York City residents has died from Coronavirus.  That isn't infected New Yorkers, that's ALL OF NEW YORK CITY.   That means we are at a 0.16% fatality rate as a floor.

But we can still draw reasonable conclusions from this.

1.  More New Yorkers will likely die from this disease
2.  More New Yorkers will likely become infected with this disease
3.  There was a study that tested for coronavirus antibodies in NYC.  19.9% of results came back positive.  So on face value it appears that 19.9% of New Yorker city residents have already had the disease.  BUT -- We also know that the antibody test has false positives due to interactions with other virus antibodies.  We also know that this test was given to volunteers waiting in lines at stores.  Presumably if you are out and about, you are at a higher risk of being infected than if you stay at home.   This means that the 19.9% test result probably reflects a higher number than we would find in a random sample, and is also inflated by false positives.   Even so -- using this math nets us 0.16% x 5 = 0.8% mortality rate.  AS A FLOOR.
4.  Data appears to show that COVID related deaths are being undercounted.  
5.  New York city has a lower average age than the rest of the United States.  35.8 vs. 38.2 years.
6.  In general, COVID effects older people more severely than younger people.

Conclusion:  0.8% is likely the absolute floor for fatality rates.  The actual fatality rate is probably much higher.

But wait -- we can still draw more conclusions.  Worldwide, the fatality rate of confirmed cases is just under 7%.  We know this isn't an accurate fatality rate, because there simply aren't enough tests to go around, and because a few countries have been hit hard due to lack of adequate medical care.  In fact, I would say this number is inflated a few times over.

After looking at the numbers in detail I think a fatality rate of between 1.3% and 2.3% is likely.

You are saying roughly 2% of those who contract the disease die, correct (1.3-2.3%)?

I can buy that, I do wonder how many deaths are from COVID and not in the numbers, and how many in the numbers are not really COVID.

I'd probably put wider error bars on your estimate myself, but I think your likely are pretty close.

The question asked was whether ANY estimates were below 0.8%.  I provided one.

I mean...I'm sure a grandma on Facebook is claiming all of these deaths are caused by 5G.  That wouldn't be a valid source.

Neither is biased website that retracts its own data after making bold claims about a study that are verifiably inaccurate.  Hence why I linked the study itself...

I guess I'm saying that I'm still waiting on a source for a number that low. 

I'm not saying I can't be wrong, btw.  I'm saying I haven't found any credible information that shows a death rate lower than 0.8%.