> and that's the point where the death rate jumps from 0.2% to 3%+

Do you have a citation for that? We haven't seen a death rate of 0.2% in any population.

SK (which has the broadest base of testing), Diamond Princess (which offered a unique case study, where we could test every person), and epidemiological estimates are all closer to 1%.

Where are you getting the 0.2% number from?

Grandparent comment is almost certainly referring to the Case Fatality Rate. South Korea is a better example, due to widespread testing (there was a lot of self-selection on cruise populations).

CFR of 3% - 5% for unprepared areas is not unreasonable. 0.6% is closer to the South Korean experience. https://github.com/CSSEGISandData/covid-19

Yes, but my specific question was: where did they get a CFR of 0.2% from?

SK's CFR[1] is currently 0.9% (8,162 cases; 75 deaths).

I haven't seen any source (or reputable estimate) that indicates a 0.2% CFR. So I'm asking for a citation or reference for where that number came from.

[1] data from John's Hopkin's tracker: https://www.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594...

Death rate != CFR.

CFR is the fatality rate for diagnosed people and it's gonna swing wildly depending on how many people are tested and diagnosed. And considering how this virus affects young and healthy people, there's good reason to believe that a lot of people get infected and never seek out medical assistance and never get diagnosed.

Even the best numbers we have are often skewed and misleading - as an example, we have a lot of good data from the cruise ship quarantined in Japan, but cruise passengers do not match the demographics of the general population.

Chloroquine may explain why South Korea has low CFR

https://youtu.be/U7F1cnWup9M?t=891

Really promising and excellent video. I hope chloroquine (or hydroxychloroquine) proves to be effective in emergency clinical trials. And that it can be readily sourced for upcoming patients if so.

All researchers, doctors should see this video & cited papers to evaluate potential.

From the CDC:

"but a broad range of 0.25%–3.0% probably should be considered."

https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/6/20-0320_article

But even that isn't really responsive.

The parent said the death rate (without care) jumps from 0.2% to 3% (with care) as if both numbers were known.

An article saying that the death rate (with care) could range anywhere from 0.25%-3.0% seems...like not a solid foundation to make the claim the parent commenter made.

IIRC Diamond Princess tester people gradually over a prolonged period. They declared that anyone who tested negative at any point was obviously still negative when they got off the ship.

The issue is that infections are not going to be evenly distributed inline with ICU beds. For example, NYC has 3,000 ICU beds, of which 80% are already occupied (65 by coronavirus patients based on the latest numbers). Meaning there are 600 ICU beds open right now. With a 10% ICU rate, that's only 6,000 confirmed infections in a city of 8.6M for the hospitals to be overwhelmed.

Sadly, all of New York has 3000 ICU beds. New York City probably only has about half of those.

A huge portion of those beds need to be used for other illnesses besides covid19; the breakaway case number is therefore much lower than 1M.

of the infections that don't require hospitalization what is the average recovery time? seems like we should start seeing recovery numbers going up soon.

It’s hard to tell. Many cases are asymptomatic and a lot of people are being denied tests because they are rationed. But the data seems to point to roughly 1-2 weeks recovery time for unhospitalized cases.