Thanks for posting this. So I will show my arithmetic for the pearl clutchers:
764 (+) / 10,000 tests = 7.6% incidence
42 deaths / 764 (+) = 5.51% rate (probably spuriously high as sample is still somewhat small. BUT....
5.5% of 7.6% = 0.3% population death rate (Deaths/total tests)
Even if the (+) rate is 10% transmission, that makes the true death rate 0.5%, tracking I nine with South Korea.
We have had something like 20,000 posts on this subject, and one thing has become very very clear:
Anyone who focuses on death rates is either a newbie or has not done their homework.
The issue is _not_ death rates, it is the stress on the health care system caused by people (of all ages) who will need major medical intervention in ICUs.
Once the health care system collapses, folks with every health issue known to man will be subject to vastly increased risk of death—but it will not be coronavirus which kills them.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCD2-QVBQi48RRQTD4Jhxu8w
We have gone over this ground—over and over and over and over again...
“5.5% of 7.6% = 0.3% population death rate (Deaths/total tests)”
A completely misleading and meaningless stat. What if they just test everybody? Will some people magically get better or something? Or will the testing kill some, instead?
“42 deaths / 764 (+) = 5.51% rate”
42 died out of 764 positives. Gee, that’s a lot closer to Italy stats than to South Korea.
You estimated .3% death rate for the whole population.
Offhand I’d guess that’s about a hundred times worse than the flu.
Care to look it up and compare?
Like the 38-year-old half marathon runner in Italy, or the Ivy League (Penn) pediatric cardiologist.
Sod off, vermin.
We probably should factor in that that almost all of the deaths in Washington state have been from various rest homes with already health-challenged folks.
It seems to be dropping fast, though, as it was about one in ten and now it is one in 25 testing positive.