No, it doesn't, because the usual time to death, if it causes death, isn't zero, so you need to compare the number of deaths a couple weeks from now with the number of infections today to get a closer-to-accurate number.
Also, you are using the 10,290 confirmed deaths and i ignoring the 5,121+ additional identified probable COVID-19 deaths. So, between those two things, the actual fatality rate if the current infection estimate from this study is right is probably 2-3 times the figure you cite.
As a percentage of those who were infected as of this study, that's a 1.3% infection fatality rate.
Obviously some conjecture and estimates there, but it seems to be on the high range of early estimates (though much lower than the 3%+ rates derived from CFR with undercounted denominator).
So two methods give us similar counts, matching up very closely with the separately measured CFR from way back in the original outbreak. That's pretty good back-of-the-envelope work.
[1] this isn't quite right as not every fatality was a hospitalized case.
edit: and also potentially lower than in the essential worker populations. So some caveats to keep in mind
those most susceptible get the disease first, those most sensitive die first -
I believe the ratios will not stay the same, but continuously tick downwards
Hope it stays that way.
Not only are death rates sharply higher in older people, but their infection rates relative to the population are also higher as well.
https://www.history.com/news/spanish-flu-second-wave-resurge...
It's also nowhere near the HIV/AIDS global epidemic in likely total impact, but it's a lot more acute in it's impact than HIV/AIDS.
Also worth noting that a huge number of names in biology are quite arbitrary and/or accidents of history.
Or tech, for that matter. Fewer and fewer "hard disks" involve any actual disk, and more non-floppy floppy disks were made than actual floppy ones. Etc.
The Spanish Flu had a estimated infection fatality ratio of >2.5% (https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/12/1/05-0979_article). As another commenter pointed out, the COVID-19 IFR is 0.9% in NYC. The difference between 2.5% and 0.9% is only 2.8x. However the IFR is not only underestimated due to the lag between case detection and death, but it's also probably a lot worse in many other parts of the world (third world countries, etc). So it's possible the difference is only 2-fold, which would make both pandemics relatively comparable.
1) I have not been sick since last fall
2) I don't want to take additional risk getting bloodwork done by someone who is testing people for covid19 antibodies. I want to take a little risk as possible and return home to my family.
So basically this test only possibly grabs people who are willing to risk going to the grocery store rather than having food delivered, and who are willing to take on additional risk of getting tested. It is even less likely that a person not taking risk, who never had any symptoms would get tested than a person who had had symptoms.
The entire premise that this represents the population as a whole is completely flawed.
Won't there be a high level of age stratification in there. Over 60, death rate will be way higher than if you are younger and probably close to zero under 20.
It seems better if we could have a risk per age group to see who can go back to a somewhat normal life and protect the most vulnerable.
I don't the flu's fatality is calculated against every exposed to the flu but against everyone who gets sick with the flu. If the flu also 50% asymptomatic exposed individuals, that would know it's fatality rate down further for comparison's sake.
The shutdown wasn't, and isn't, based on the fatality rate under current conditions as much as the shape of the curve of various medical resources being required (total hospital beds, ICU beds, ventilators, PPE for healthcare workers, etc.), the anticipated speed of being able to bring more online, and the likely impact of exceeding available supply on death rates and other health outcomes, both for COVID-19 victims and patients with other health conditions. (A potential problem which was significantly realized in Italy, where things like ventilators were for a while allocated based on other factors besides medical need, since the number with need exceeded the supply.)
It's important to remember that the fatality rate of a disease isn't a constant, and changes to conditions (like, we can no longer provide ventilators to everyone who needs one) can change that rate.
And the earliest predictions have to be the least accurate, because they're based on the least amount of data. But early on is when you need to act.
https://www.healthline.com/health-news/how-deadly-is-the-cor...
The point still stands is that enough to warrant the current strategy compared with countries like Korean or TW.
I mean there were articles like this all of march. I'm not saying the WHO or CDC might of said something different but lets acknowledge there were articles proclaiming a 3% death rate.
Edit: Removed the term revisionism since I wasn't aware of the historical connotation.
Edited to add "MINIMUM", as there is a lag between case detection and death (I should have known better to mention it, as I blogged about it: https://blog.zorinaq.com/case-fatality-ratio-ncov/)