I don't follow your reasoning. South Korea has tested 35 times the number of positive cases. That's a lot. Presumably, it's not a random sample, but people who have been in touch with people who have had obvious symptoms. Maybe some random sampling in outbreak areas, I don't know their methodology.
Certainly there's a number of people that are not picked up throughout that process. This means that the real death rate is not ~70/8000. The real denominator is bigger.
But it wouldn't be on the order of 10 times bigger. In most of the groups of sick people, there's likely to be some that show enough symptoms to prompt a test, with a positive test leading most of that group to be tracked down. The exception would be tiny groups that somehow did not spread the disease further, or untracably spread it to similar tiny groups.
I don't buy that there's a massive amount of such lonely cases out there. Twice as many as detected? Sure. But not a dramatically bigger number than that.
Maybe there's a way to show mathematically that this reasoning is wrong, if so, please feel free.
I'll use London for an example. I personally know many people who believe they have this, and, I believe I and 3 friends picked it up from each other after one visited Milan in Feb. Loads of people have this and are not counted.
> But it wouldn't be on the order of 10 times bigger.
I believe it is of that order.
> In most of the groups of sick people, there's likely to be some that show enough symptoms to prompt a test, with a positive test leading most of that group to be tracked down
Literally not because most people won't be tested unless they are in need of hospitalisation
Certainly there's a number of people that are not picked up throughout that process. This means that the real death rate is not ~70/8000. The real denominator is bigger.
But it wouldn't be on the order of 10 times bigger. In most of the groups of sick people, there's likely to be some that show enough symptoms to prompt a test, with a positive test leading most of that group to be tracked down. The exception would be tiny groups that somehow did not spread the disease further, or untracably spread it to similar tiny groups.
I don't buy that there's a massive amount of such lonely cases out there. Twice as many as detected? Sure. But not a dramatically bigger number than that.
Maybe there's a way to show mathematically that this reasoning is wrong, if so, please feel free.