> You are claiming that a study published in January supercedes a study in February.

No, I am no. I am saying the study supercedes numbers reported by authorities. The point of the study was to scatter information on very opaque reporting.

> China's numbers are a minimum. Many people are saying online they are a maximum. I.e. claiming that there are lots of hidden mild infections when there are not.

That doesn't parse.

A lot of people are claiming that China's death rate was under 1%. That is one of the reasons everyone is delaying action.

Death rate was under 1% outside of Wuhan and in South Korea. It's over 5% within Wuhan and in Italy.

The way I interpreted that discrepancy is that in the presence of full testing and good ICU care, the death rate from COVID-19 is about 0.7-1%. When the hospitals get overloaded, as they've been in Wuhan and Italy, the death rate skyrockets to 5-10%. This also squares roughly with the number of people who need ICU care in places where the death rate is low. If you need ICU care and don't get it, presumably you'll be dead.

Median death is 14 days after first symptoms with many cases taking significantly longer. That combined with an exponential growth curve looks significantly less deadly. A major discrepancy is the under detection of cases as full population testing has been rare outside of the cruse ships which also have an elderly population.