Quote Originally Posted by dantheman4248 View Post
That's what I'm accounting for in the part where I'm cutting from 10% to 5%. My guestimation was that people who have had it is double what we've reported. It may be more than that but that's a hard spot to go from. Maybe it's quadruple and that would end up with 1% death rate. But that one is too hard to know and has the highest variability. That's why I said at the beginning that it's a hard thing to predict and gave it my best guess.

You're now trying to straw man me and pigeonhole it into an argument that this is what I said will happen. I was asked my best projection and gave reasons why.

Now if you wanna show me why I should believe the infected and recovered cases that aren't reported is 3x the amount that were, then I'm all ears.
Ok but that's not what you said. You said you were cutting from 10% to 5% to account for people who requested testing and were turned down. I took your statement as written, and I agree with you on that.

But your original statement and formula did not account at all for people who have, or have had, the virus and have not even sought treatment who are still alive. I agree with you that there is no way to put a number on that variable, but we do know it is a variable that exists and was not accounted for in your original formula as you stated it, and when accounted for would lower your number below 5%.

And I'm not trying to pigeonholed you. Just pointing out an unaccounted for variable in your original formula.