> I’d say though you’re fear mongering posting a comment like this, why ?

If you're just stating that without posing a counter argument then I think you have failed to understand what I am saying. And that is precisely why I posted.

1. The methodology being used to arrive at the 2-3% figure is unambiguously vulnerable to bias. It may be the case that other biases (under-reporting mild cases) cancels out the effect, or maybe not.

2. The same methodology when applied to SARS was provably biased, and an alternative seemingly equally valid estimator was accurate for SARS and gives a much higher estimate for the mortality rate of coronavirus.

If, in fact, we are off by mortality estimates by a factor of 4 it needs to be more widely known because the appropriate economic trade-off in handling is different at the two mortality levels. (In particular, if the mortality rate is much higher for working age people then economically disruptive countermeasures are more justified.)

I'm doubtful that any comments on hacker news are likely to result in public panic. I think for the most part the audience here is capable of reasoning about these things and making prudent decisions.

Are you qualified to make these claims and assumptions though, do you study viruses ? You’re a scientist who understand these things well?

Ok it’s fine to speculate, but you’re throwing up some big figures in what’s already a panicked situation and pretty much everything you’re saying is based purely on speculation and anecdotal evidence.

I just find it odd health organisations have already done studies, published numbers yet people all cover the internet (on HN of all places) seem to feel like they want to exaggerate the issue, refute the science and don’t trust the existing numbers. Why ?

I am not, but the paper I was referencing was written by people who are: https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/162/5/479/82647 My interesting the question arose out of my experience with non-epidemiological process estimation.

I spoken with a professional epidemiologist and they also agreed.

If CDC were saying that they considered this case and concluded that d/c is a more reliable estimator, I'd be happy to hear it. Instead, it appears d/c -- which is a good estimator for viruses in steady state-- is being used because it's just the default and the only research I can find which has actually evaluated this question found that d/c underestimates in a rapidly spreading infection.