We're not actually testing everyone here, it's a common repeated trope from international news but testing is readily available to all who want to and we test all inbound arrivals via the single airport (now we do, didn't before). They can either self quarantine for 14 days after that or get another test in 4-5 days.
People are pointing to these "fatality rates" as though they're accurate, consistent and fair representations of the risk the disease poses to individuals. That's simply not the case. They're correct, but they're different and inconsistent.
https://www.itv.com/news/2020-08-12/long-covid-what-is-it-wh...
https://www.webmd.com/lung/coronavirus-complications
From WebMD: "Some people -- about 1 in 6 -- will have complications, including some that are life-threatening."
From ITV: "a study by King's College London found an estimated 10% of people with the virus take at least three weeks to recover, with 250,000 people in the UK alone thought to experience symptoms for 30 days or more. Many of those experiencing long tail coronavirus were fit, active people whose lives have been completely turned upside down by the ongoing symptoms."
I think there is an assumption that if you contract something that puts people in the ICU, you should expect your life to be permanently altered by it. I suspect that assumption is helping mute attempts to collect and quantify that data.
I can't believe people continue to use CFR for evaluating risk. It's a totally worthless metric, and now that we have serological studies, an approximation of the IFR is available. The IFR is somewhere around 0.5% plus or minus.
The disease is effectively the same the whole world over and is equally fatal the whole world over. The reason for an order of magnitude spread in CFR is because Iceland is testing everyone (hence approximating the actual fatality rate, IFR) whereas every other country is testing different groups.
Yes the fatality rate is 4% for people who walk into hospital hugely ill. This is a sampling bias. It's like saying skydiving is 99% fatal based on counting only people whose parachutes failed to deploy. Then presenting the risk as "anywhere between 0.001% and 99%."
It's about 0.5% across the whole population. Much lower for children (lower than the flu). About the same as the flu for 20s and 30s people, particularly healthy ones. It's much, much higher for old sick people (20-30% in a nursing home, for instance).
There's no way to say 2-16 deaths based on the 400 infected by multiplying 400 by 0.5%; it could be zero if the 400 infected were kids, and it could be 150 if the French folks did a tour of nursing homes.
[edit] 'just-juan-post' provided a link to a study indicating my figures are overstated and the fatality rates are probably half that. [1]
[1] https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-5352