
Revisiting Coronavirus Data Analysis - nixtaken
https://kirstenhacker.wordpress.com/2020/03/22/revisiting-coronavirus-data-analysis/
======
spikels
Not data analysis, just weakly argued opinion. Author even accuses “Germany’s
virologists” of “lying”.

While this seems like pessimistic bias I think much of the confusion about
mortality rates stems from the multiple definitions. Is the denominator
infected, symptomatic or hospitalized? These three estimates - still very
uncertain today - will vary drastically.

Here’s some actual data analysis on this subject:
[https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0822-7](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0822-7)

~~~
nixtaken
If the death rate turns out to be 0.5% as claimed by the virologists on the
German nightly news, I'll stand corrected. They say that the dark number of
unreported cases is a factor of ten of what is reported, but if it is a factor
of ten in Germany and South Korea, then it has to be a factor of 100 in places
like the US, UK, Spain, and Italy. I like clear data presentation and many
people mistake complex data presentation for quality. Just compare the CDC
site and the worldometer site. Anybody can do simple calculations to interpret
worldometer data, but the CDC site presentation is harder to parse. I think
this is a deliberate form of gatekeeping. Incidentally, from where I am in
Germany, I can only view the first page of the Nature article you linked. As
with all articles of its sort, the devil is in the details.

