The real death rate of COVID-19 in the U.S. may be 140 times smaller than what is being reported

[HappyJoy]

Pretty sure the man knows HOW to estimate an epidemic "death rate"...

And the other people who are ACTUAL virologists and epidemiologists...do they how to estimate it, too? In your expert estimation, that is.

He found a single study and is convinced that's where we are at only because he wants it to be true.

 

[HappyJoy]

Since I KNOW you're not understand or read the link, here's what this Dr. researches and writes about..

Fellowship: Stanford University Infectious Disease Fellowships (2009) CA
Residency: Stanford University Internal Medicine Residency (2005) CA

My work broadly investigates the drivers of population health improvements in developing countries. I study how economic, political, and natural environments affect population health. I use a mix of experimental, econometric, qualitative, modeling, and demographic tools to produce insights and strategies for improving health. A sample of current projects address the following questions:

•What role does US foreign aid play in reducing mortality and improving equity in developing countries?
•What forms of engagement in health improvements - social marketing, public health interventions, or community empowerment, for example - work, and which do not?
•What effect do malaria control programs have on child mortality?
•What combination of prevention strategies are most cost-effective for Africa’s HIV epidemic?
•What is the evidence that foreign aid for health is good diplomacy?
•Which populations are most vulnerable to the effects of climate conditions on the availability of food?

Great, doesn't look like he focuses on contagious diseases other than a bullet point for AIDS. It's a single study out of many and even they say to take this seriously.

You're not much of reader are you?? More of a belligerent arguer... He's got 137 papers.. Just off the first dozen...

• Monitoring of antiretroviral therapy in low-resource settings Bendavid, E. (2008). Monitoring of antiretroviral therapy in low-resource settings. LANCET, 372(9635), 288–289.
• Cost-effectiveness of HIV monitoring strategies in resource-limited settings - A Southern African analysis Bendavid, E., Young, S. D., Katzenstein, D. A., Bayoumi, A. M., Sanders, G. D., & Owens, D. K. (2008). Cost-effectiveness of HIV monitoring strategies in resource-limited settings - A Southern African analysis. ARCHIVES OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 168(17), 1910–18.
• 
  
• Expanding Antiretroviral Options in Resource-Limited Settings-A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Bendavid, E., Wood, R., Katzenstein, D. A., Bayoumi, A. M., & Owens, D. K. (2009). Expanding Antiretroviral Options in Resource-Limited Settings-A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis. JAIDS-JOURNAL OF ACQUIRED IMMUNE DEFICIENCY SYNDROMES, 52(1), 106–13.
• 
  
• The relationship between HIV testing, stigma, and health service usage Young, S. D., & Bendavid, E. (2010). The relationship between HIV testing, stigma, and health service usage. AIDS CARE-PSYCHOLOGICAL AND SOCIO-MEDICAL ASPECTS OF AIDS/HIV, 22(3), 373–380.
• AIDS and declining support for dependent elderly people in Africa: retrospective analysis using demographic and health surveys Kautz, T., Bendavid, E., Bhattacharya, J., & Miller, G. (2010). AIDS and declining support for dependent elderly people in Africa: retrospective analysis using demographic and health surveys. BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 340.
• Comparative Effectiveness of HIV Testing and Treatment in Highly Endemic Regions Bendavid, E., Brandeau, M. L., Wood, R., & Owens, D. K. (2010). Comparative Effectiveness of HIV Testing and Treatment in Highly Endemic Regions. ARCHIVES OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 170(15), 1347–54.

Great. Other than HIV what does that have to do with contagious disease?

Mind you, I don't think these professors are bad people but this is only a single study and you're hanging your hat on it and ignoring everything else. Is Trump this important to you?

 

[flacaltenn]

Since I KNOW you're not understand or read the link, here's what this Dr. researches and writes about..

Fellowship: Stanford University Infectious Disease Fellowships (2009) CA
Residency: Stanford University Internal Medicine Residency (2005) CA

My work broadly investigates the drivers of population health improvements in developing countries. I study how economic, political, and natural environments affect population health. I use a mix of experimental, econometric, qualitative, modeling, and demographic tools to produce insights and strategies for improving health. A sample of current projects address the following questions:

•What role does US foreign aid play in reducing mortality and improving equity in developing countries?
•What forms of engagement in health improvements - social marketing, public health interventions, or community empowerment, for example - work, and which do not?
•What effect do malaria control programs have on child mortality?
•What combination of prevention strategies are most cost-effective for Africa’s HIV epidemic?
•What is the evidence that foreign aid for health is good diplomacy?
•Which populations are most vulnerable to the effects of climate conditions on the availability of food?

Great, doesn't look like he focuses on contagious diseases other than a bullet point for AIDS. It's a single study out of many and even they say to take this seriously.

You're not much of reader are you?? More of a belligerent arguer... He's got 137 papers.. Just off the first dozen...

• Monitoring of antiretroviral therapy in low-resource settings Bendavid, E. (2008). Monitoring of antiretroviral therapy in low-resource settings. LANCET, 372(9635), 288–289.
• Cost-effectiveness of HIV monitoring strategies in resource-limited settings - A Southern African analysis Bendavid, E., Young, S. D., Katzenstein, D. A., Bayoumi, A. M., Sanders, G. D., & Owens, D. K. (2008). Cost-effectiveness of HIV monitoring strategies in resource-limited settings - A Southern African analysis. ARCHIVES OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 168(17), 1910–18.
• 
  
• Expanding Antiretroviral Options in Resource-Limited Settings-A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Bendavid, E., Wood, R., Katzenstein, D. A., Bayoumi, A. M., & Owens, D. K. (2009). Expanding Antiretroviral Options in Resource-Limited Settings-A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis. JAIDS-JOURNAL OF ACQUIRED IMMUNE DEFICIENCY SYNDROMES, 52(1), 106–13.
• 
  
• The relationship between HIV testing, stigma, and health service usage Young, S. D., & Bendavid, E. (2010). The relationship between HIV testing, stigma, and health service usage. AIDS CARE-PSYCHOLOGICAL AND SOCIO-MEDICAL ASPECTS OF AIDS/HIV, 22(3), 373–380.
• AIDS and declining support for dependent elderly people in Africa: retrospective analysis using demographic and health surveys Kautz, T., Bendavid, E., Bhattacharya, J., & Miller, G. (2010). AIDS and declining support for dependent elderly people in Africa: retrospective analysis using demographic and health surveys. BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 340.
• Comparative Effectiveness of HIV Testing and Treatment in Highly Endemic Regions Bendavid, E., Brandeau, M. L., Wood, R., & Owens, D. K. (2010). Comparative Effectiveness of HIV Testing and Treatment in Highly Endemic Regions. ARCHIVES OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 170(15), 1347–54.

Great. Other than HIV what does that have to do with contagious disease?

Mind you, I don't think these professors are bad people but this is only a single study and you're hanging your hat on it and ignoring everything else. Is Trump this important to you?

The fact that you played the Trump card and can't focus means this isn't a real discussion anymore...

 

[Rocko]

180,636 infected 3575 deaths death rate = 1.97%

 

[Faun]

180,636 infected 3575 deaths death rate = 1.97%

That's based on unknown outcomes. Figures based on known outcomes shows a mortality rate of 36.5%

Deaths: 3580
Recoveries: 6241

COVID Live - Coronavirus Statistics - Worldometer

Live statistics and coronavirus news tracking the number of confirmed cases, recovered patients, tests, and death toll due to the COVID-19 coronavirus from Wuhan, China. Coronavirus counter with new cases, deaths, and number of tests per 1 Million population. Historical data and info. Daily...

www.worldometers.info

 

[Blaine Sweeter]

This should drive the hysteria mongers crazy. How are they going to generate hysteria about a disease that is less serious than the flu?

https://danfromsquirrelhill.wordpress.com/2020/03/30/the-real-denominator/​

​

It’s possible that the number of people in the U.S. who are infected with COVID-19 is much bigger than the number that is being currently reported, but many of those people haven’t gotten substantially sick, and so haven’t gotten tested.​

​

The death rate is calculated by dividing the number of people who die by the number who get infected.​

​

But while we do have accurate information about the numerator, we really have no idea what the denominator is. It’s possible that the real denominator is magnitudes bigger than what is being reported, because most infected people have either no symptoms or minor symptoms, and thus, don’t get tested. If this is indeed the case, then it’s possible that the real death rate is far, far lower than the one that is being reported.​

​

As of this writing (early March 30, 2020), in the U.S., 142,735 people have tested positive for COVID-19, and of those, 2,489 have died from it. (I got those numbers from this link, which is continuously being updated.)​

​

Based on these numbers, the fatality rate in the U.S. is 1.744%​

​

Meanwhile, Iceland tested a large segment of its population, including people with no symptoms, and found that 6.3% of them have COVID-19.​

​

The U.S. has 328 million people. If we extrapolate Iceland’s figure of 6.3% to the U.S., it would suggest that more than 20 million people in the U.S. have COVID-19. (I realize that extrapolating Iceland’s test results to the U.S. is not the ideal way to determine the rate of infection in the U.S. But given the absence of this particular type of widespread testing in the U.S., it’s probably the most accurate guess that we can make at this point in time. Hopefully, such widespread testing will be done in the U.S., and we will then have a more accurate number.)​

​

So for the U.S., the real denominator may be 140 times bigger than the one that is being reported.​

​

Which, if true, would indicate that the estimated real death rate in the U.S. is more than two magnitudes smaller than what is being reported.​

​

And, if true, would mean that the estimated real death rate in the U.S. is 0.01246%​

​

Anybody here besides me know of someone who is sick with this?
I do. A friend's son in Brooklyn and an entire family in Philly because of the shutdown of the Lockheed Martin project due to ONE person being diagnosed in the facility.
There's a LOT more infections out there that aren't being reported.
.

 

[Lewdog]

The only people I'm listening to are the front line workers who are not only trying to save lives, but keep from getting sick themselves or infecting their family. A couple guys writing an academic paper this early into a pandemic without knowing the proper numbers is useless. Feel free to list the last time cities were forced to do the things going on right now.

 

[Contumacious]

This should drive the hysteria mongers crazy. How are they going to generate hysteria about a disease that is less serious than the flu?

https://danfromsquirrelhill.wordpress.com/2020/03/30/the-real-denominator/​

​

It’s possible that the number of people in the U.S. who are infected with COVID-19 is much bigger than the number that is being currently reported, but many of those people haven’t gotten substantially sick, and so haven’t gotten tested.​

​

The death rate is calculated by dividing the number of people who die by the number who get infected.​

​

But while we do have accurate information about the numerator, we really have no idea what the denominator is. It’s possible that the real denominator is magnitudes bigger than what is being reported, because most infected people have either no symptoms or minor symptoms, and thus, don’t get tested. If this is indeed the case, then it’s possible that the real death rate is far, far lower than the one that is being reported.​

​

As of this writing (early March 30, 2020), in the U.S., 142,735 people have tested positive for COVID-19, and of those, 2,489 have died from it. (I got those numbers from this link, which is continuously being updated.)​

​

Based on these numbers, the fatality rate in the U.S. is 1.744%​

​

Meanwhile, Iceland tested a large segment of its population, including people with no symptoms, and found that 6.3% of them have COVID-19.​

​

The U.S. has 328 million people. If we extrapolate Iceland’s figure of 6.3% to the U.S., it would suggest that more than 20 million people in the U.S. have COVID-19. (I realize that extrapolating Iceland’s test results to the U.S. is not the ideal way to determine the rate of infection in the U.S. But given the absence of this particular type of widespread testing in the U.S., it’s probably the most accurate guess that we can make at this point in time. Hopefully, such widespread testing will be done in the U.S., and we will then have a more accurate number.)​

​

So for the U.S., the real denominator may be 140 times bigger than the one that is being reported.​

​

Which, if true, would indicate that the estimated real death rate in the U.S. is more than two magnitudes smaller than what is being reported.​

​

And, if true, would mean that the estimated real death rate in the U.S. is 0.01246%​

​

More than likely , that is true

We have no idea who is VALIDATING those tests and if they were and if they were , were they SCIENTIFICALLY not politically motivated


“When designing a test for COVID-19, or any virus, researchers define the parameters very carefully and then go through the validation process,” Joyce said. “If different instruments are used, there could be different parameters that could cause false negatives. I’m sure we’re working on getting DX accreditation on additional instruments.”

.

 

[bripat9643]

I asked you if they (the Stanford professors) are virologists. You obviously misunderstood a basic question and then decided to get all bent out of shape because apparently English comprehension es no bueno with you.

I WROTE what their specialty was.. And NOBODY went out of their way to find it... YOU went out of YOUR WAY to ignore it... Was ALL over the REAL news... You know the crap that Dem Underground DOESN'T reprint...

They are not the ONLY ONES... EVERYONE is guessing at what number to use to GUESS at the actual infection rate... INCLUDING the CDC.... SO the way the science thingy works is adult discussion about differing opinions.. At least until the panic ends and the random studies can be done on antibodies in those who DID contract it..

They aren't virologists.

Anyway, is Democratic Underground still around? The first I heard of the Stanford study was not from here.

Here is CNN reporting on it and I don't think you're going to appreciate the message of what the guy is saying. "We don't know". Which is a valid statement. But you want to ignore middle of the road projections such as 100k-200k dead.

Why calculating the coronavirus death rate is complicated | CNN

CNN's Michael Smerconish discusses the complicated process of calculating the novel coronavirus death rate with Stanford professor Dr. Jay Bhattacharya.

www.cnn.com

I find it interesting (and not in a good way) that the more we test the higher the mortality rate is in the United States. It was around 1.3%, it's now around 1.8%. That may change, I hope it changes but the trend isn't great.

This is why I generally ignore you... I DONT CARE what CNN called these guys.. I KNOW that before they went into practice -- they BOTH did graduate work as VIROLOGISTS... So THAT is their ACADEMIC specialty and their "practice" speciality might be some generic thing like Internal Medicine.. There's NO one smart enough or dilligerent enough at the Clown College Network to worry about that -- but their paper was posted in the WSJ and it was noted there that they BOTH had Infectious Disease research papers in their portfolios..

Did you look at their bios? It's not their expertise. They don't track and model contagious diseases. They are also saying not to take their study as absolute it's just one of many and to take the virus seriously.

If you GET your news from the Clown College Network -- pretty soon you'll be THINKING AND ACTING like a clown yourself..

Eran Bendavid

Dr. Eran Bendavid is an internal medicine doctor at Stanford Health Care.

stanfordhealthcare.org

Did CNN say something about this study that you disagree with? They actually interviewed one of them and you're calling them out for that? Putz. By all means continue to ignore me.

Fauci has spent his entire career doing HIV research. How is that relevant to Corona virus?

180,636 infected 3575 deaths death rate = 1.97%

That's based on unknown outcomes. Figures based on known outcomes shows a mortality rate of 36.5%

Deaths: 3580
Recoveries: 6241

COVID Live - Coronavirus Statistics - Worldometer

Live statistics and coronavirus news tracking the number of confirmed cases, recovered patients, tests, and death toll due to the COVID-19 coronavirus from Wuhan, China. Coronavirus counter with new cases, deaths, and number of tests per 1 Million population. Historical data and info. Daily...

www.worldometers.info

Your "recoveries" figure only counts people who have been tested and show symptoms. It doesn't count people who haven't been tested but contracted the illness. It's there meaningless bullshit.

 

[bripat9643]

The only people I'm listening to are the front line workers who are not only trying to save lives, but keep from getting sick themselves or infecting their family. A couple guys writing an academic paper this early into a pandemic without knowing the proper numbers is useless. Feel free to list the last time cities were forced to do the things going on right now.

You're not listening to anyone who contradicts the TDS fake news narrative designed to generate the maximum level of hysteria. Why would a nurse be more of an authority than someone who has done graduate studies in virology? No reason.

No one gives a shit about who you "listen to."

 

[bripat9643]

180,636 infected 3575 deaths death rate = 1.97%

You don't know how many people are infected. You only know how many of the people tested are infected.

 

[bripat9643]

Pretty sure the man knows HOW to estimate an epidemic "death rate"...

And the other people who are ACTUAL virologists and epidemiologists...do they how to estimate it, too? In your expert estimation, that is.

He found a single study and is convinced that's where we are at only because he wants it to be true.

You keep using figures that are known to be innacurate only because you wants it to be true.

 

[Rocko]

180,636 infected 3575 deaths death rate = 1.97%

You don't know how many people are infected. You only know how many of the people tested are infected.

The same goes with the death rate for the flu

 

[Faun]

I asked you if they (the Stanford professors) are virologists. You obviously misunderstood a basic question and then decided to get all bent out of shape because apparently English comprehension es no bueno with you.

I WROTE what their specialty was.. And NOBODY went out of their way to find it... YOU went out of YOUR WAY to ignore it... Was ALL over the REAL news... You know the crap that Dem Underground DOESN'T reprint...

They are not the ONLY ONES... EVERYONE is guessing at what number to use to GUESS at the actual infection rate... INCLUDING the CDC.... SO the way the science thingy works is adult discussion about differing opinions.. At least until the panic ends and the random studies can be done on antibodies in those who DID contract it..

They aren't virologists.

Anyway, is Democratic Underground still around? The first I heard of the Stanford study was not from here.

Here is CNN reporting on it and I don't think you're going to appreciate the message of what the guy is saying. "We don't know". Which is a valid statement. But you want to ignore middle of the road projections such as 100k-200k dead.

Why calculating the coronavirus death rate is complicated | CNN

CNN's Michael Smerconish discusses the complicated process of calculating the novel coronavirus death rate with Stanford professor Dr. Jay Bhattacharya.

www.cnn.com

I find it interesting (and not in a good way) that the more we test the higher the mortality rate is in the United States. It was around 1.3%, it's now around 1.8%. That may change, I hope it changes but the trend isn't great.

This is why I generally ignore you... I DONT CARE what CNN called these guys.. I KNOW that before they went into practice -- they BOTH did graduate work as VIROLOGISTS... So THAT is their ACADEMIC specialty and their "practice" speciality might be some generic thing like Internal Medicine.. There's NO one smart enough or dilligerent enough at the Clown College Network to worry about that -- but their paper was posted in the WSJ and it was noted there that they BOTH had Infectious Disease research papers in their portfolios..

Did you look at their bios? It's not their expertise. They don't track and model contagious diseases. They are also saying not to take their study as absolute it's just one of many and to take the virus seriously.

If you GET your news from the Clown College Network -- pretty soon you'll be THINKING AND ACTING like a clown yourself..

Eran Bendavid

Dr. Eran Bendavid is an internal medicine doctor at Stanford Health Care.

stanfordhealthcare.org

Did CNN say something about this study that you disagree with? They actually interviewed one of them and you're calling them out for that? Putz. By all means continue to ignore me.

Fauci has spent his entire career doing HIV research. How is that relevant to Corona virus?

180,636 infected 3575 deaths death rate = 1.97%

That's based on unknown outcomes. Figures based on known outcomes shows a mortality rate of 36.5%

Deaths: 3580
Recoveries: 6241

COVID Live - Coronavirus Statistics - Worldometer

Live statistics and coronavirus news tracking the number of confirmed cases, recovered patients, tests, and death toll due to the COVID-19 coronavirus from Wuhan, China. Coronavirus counter with new cases, deaths, and number of tests per 1 Million population. Historical data and info. Daily...

www.worldometers.info

Your "recoveries" figure only counts people who have been tested and show symptoms. It doesn't count people who haven't been tested but contracted the illness. It's there meaningless bullshit.

Fucking moron, it includes anyone being counted as a case, tested or not, and then recovering or dying.

 

[Rocko]

184781 infected 3762 deaths 2% death rate

 

[WEATHER53]

184781 infected 3762 dea 2% death rate

Essentially a misrepresentation as the rate of death of the population is no where near that.

 

[bripat9643]

180,636 infected 3575 deaths death rate = 1.97%

You don't know how many people are infected. You only know how many of the people tested are infected.

The same goes with the death rate for the flu

They can go back after the epidemic is over and determine how many people were infected.

 

[bripat9643]

184781 infected 3762 dea 2% death rate

Essentially a misrepresentation as the rate of death of the population is no where near that.

or even the death rate for the people who are infected.

 

[bripat9643]

I asked you if they (the Stanford professors) are virologists. You obviously misunderstood a basic question and then decided to get all bent out of shape because apparently English comprehension es no bueno with you.

I WROTE what their specialty was.. And NOBODY went out of their way to find it... YOU went out of YOUR WAY to ignore it... Was ALL over the REAL news... You know the crap that Dem Underground DOESN'T reprint...

They are not the ONLY ONES... EVERYONE is guessing at what number to use to GUESS at the actual infection rate... INCLUDING the CDC.... SO the way the science thingy works is adult discussion about differing opinions.. At least until the panic ends and the random studies can be done on antibodies in those who DID contract it..

They aren't virologists.

Anyway, is Democratic Underground still around? The first I heard of the Stanford study was not from here.

Here is CNN reporting on it and I don't think you're going to appreciate the message of what the guy is saying. "We don't know". Which is a valid statement. But you want to ignore middle of the road projections such as 100k-200k dead.

Why calculating the coronavirus death rate is complicated | CNN

CNN's Michael Smerconish discusses the complicated process of calculating the novel coronavirus death rate with Stanford professor Dr. Jay Bhattacharya.

www.cnn.com

I find it interesting (and not in a good way) that the more we test the higher the mortality rate is in the United States. It was around 1.3%, it's now around 1.8%. That may change, I hope it changes but the trend isn't great.

This is why I generally ignore you... I DONT CARE what CNN called these guys.. I KNOW that before they went into practice -- they BOTH did graduate work as VIROLOGISTS... So THAT is their ACADEMIC specialty and their "practice" speciality might be some generic thing like Internal Medicine.. There's NO one smart enough or dilligerent enough at the Clown College Network to worry about that -- but their paper was posted in the WSJ and it was noted there that they BOTH had Infectious Disease research papers in their portfolios..

Did you look at their bios? It's not their expertise. They don't track and model contagious diseases. They are also saying not to take their study as absolute it's just one of many and to take the virus seriously.

If you GET your news from the Clown College Network -- pretty soon you'll be THINKING AND ACTING like a clown yourself..

Eran Bendavid

Dr. Eran Bendavid is an internal medicine doctor at Stanford Health Care.

stanfordhealthcare.org

Did CNN say something about this study that you disagree with? They actually interviewed one of them and you're calling them out for that? Putz. By all means continue to ignore me.

Fauci has spent his entire career doing HIV research. How is that relevant to Corona virus?

180,636 infected 3575 deaths death rate = 1.97%

That's based on unknown outcomes. Figures based on known outcomes shows a mortality rate of 36.5%

Deaths: 3580
Recoveries: 6241

COVID Live - Coronavirus Statistics - Worldometer

Live statistics and coronavirus news tracking the number of confirmed cases, recovered patients, tests, and death toll due to the COVID-19 coronavirus from Wuhan, China. Coronavirus counter with new cases, deaths, and number of tests per 1 Million population. Historical data and info. Daily...

www.worldometers.info

Your "recoveries" figure only counts people who have been tested and show symptoms. It doesn't count people who haven't been tested but contracted the illness. It's there meaningless bullshit.

Fucking moron, it includes anyone being counted as a case, tested or not, and then recovering or dying.

The only people being counted as a case are the people who have been tested, dumbass.

You seem intent on proving how stupid you are.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

This should drive the hysteria mongers crazy. How are they going to generate hysteria about a disease that is less serious than the flu?

https://danfromsquirrelhill.wordpress.com/2020/03/30/the-real-denominator/​

​

It’s possible that the number of people in the U.S. who are infected with COVID-19 is much bigger than the number that is being currently reported, but many of those people haven’t gotten substantially sick, and so haven’t gotten tested.​

​

The death rate is calculated by dividing the number of people who die by the number who get infected.​

​

But while we do have accurate information about the numerator, we really have no idea what the denominator is. It’s possible that the real denominator is magnitudes bigger than what is being reported, because most infected people have either no symptoms or minor symptoms, and thus, don’t get tested. If this is indeed the case, then it’s possible that the real death rate is far, far lower than the one that is being reported.​

​

As of this writing (early March 30, 2020), in the U.S., 142,735 people have tested positive for COVID-19, and of those, 2,489 have died from it. (I got those numbers from this link, which is continuously being updated.)​

​

Based on these numbers, the fatality rate in the U.S. is 1.744%​

​

Meanwhile, Iceland tested a large segment of its population, including people with no symptoms, and found that 6.3% of them have COVID-19.​

​

The U.S. has 328 million people. If we extrapolate Iceland’s figure of 6.3% to the U.S., it would suggest that more than 20 million people in the U.S. have COVID-19. (I realize that extrapolating Iceland’s test results to the U.S. is not the ideal way to determine the rate of infection in the U.S. But given the absence of this particular type of widespread testing in the U.S., it’s probably the most accurate guess that we can make at this point in time. Hopefully, such widespread testing will be done in the U.S., and we will then have a more accurate number.)​

​

So for the U.S., the real denominator may be 140 times bigger than the one that is being reported.​

​

Which, if true, would indicate that the estimated real death rate in the U.S. is more than two magnitudes smaller than what is being reported.​

​

And, if true, would mean that the estimated real death rate in the U.S. is 0.01246%​

​

I'm telling ya, this whole thing is just the liberals going nuclear, they are putting all their eggs in this "corona-virus" basket, it's a last ditch effort to swing the election and every government agency is onboard, heck I bet there are liberals on this forum who will swear they have been hit on the head with a piece of falling sky.