I said myself that I didn't believe the cruise ship numbers were representative, but the 20% figure you cite isn't a realistic hospitalisation rate either as it only includes diagnosed cases.
The number of undiagnosed cases is the great unknown that experts disagree on. It's also the basis for all the wild speculation out there.
Under normal circumstances I would say let's test a random sample of the population in some affected area. But as test kits are scarce doing that would probably be ill advised.
The same is true for the flu. People get it every year but they don’t go and get swabbed.
I also agree that there’s a wide range of possibility. But I’m responding to the claim there’s no data with a study from China’s CDC that most experts are citing as the best info we have right now. Is it perfect? No. But the Diamond Princess isn’t a scientific study — it’s a mess.
Edit: for a range of possible outcomes, this article is helpful:
> The same is true for the flu. People get it every year but they don’t go and get swabbed.
But with the flu we have large population studies, so we can estimate the number of likely infected based on the number seeking treatment. They study you are citing can't be generalized, and no one but you is claiming it should be used to estimate hospitalization rate.
Public health officials who are trying to produce estimates are using that study along with models of how many un-diagnosed cases might be out there to try to predict hospitalization rates. But they aren't naively throwing out your 20% number.
>But I’m responding to the claim there’s no data with a study
There is no data to support your claim of a possible 20% hospitalization rate. None, it doesn't exist. There is data to support a 20% hospitalization rate among people sick enough to seek treatment, and people sick enough to be clinically diagnosed.
>at the extreme high Iran, and Italy aligning roughly with China’s study.
Italy and Iran also likely have far more actual cases than confirmed.
>No. But the Diamond Princess isn’t a scientific study — it’s a mess.
The study you are presenting makes no attempt to predict the actual hospitalization rate among the general population. And the samples aren't random. It's more a mess than the numbers from the Diamond Princess.
Everyone on board the ship was tested, no sampling bias there. But even then, there is selection bias because the ship's population is older than the general population.
The 20% figure is not an imperfect estimate of the true hospitalisation rate. As far as I know the study didn't even attempt to estimate the true number of infections or (by implication) the true hospitalisation rate.
The number of undiagnosed cases is the great unknown that experts disagree on. It's also the basis for all the wild speculation out there.
Under normal circumstances I would say let's test a random sample of the population in some affected area. But as test kits are scarce doing that would probably be ill advised.