> Come on, it was pretty obvious from very early on (during the Wuhan outbreak, then validated in Italy soon after) that the disease did not kill 1%
I don't think this was that obvious. Without widespread testing it was hard to tell how many people had got the virus. In China, 1 in 20 people who tested positive have died. In Italy it's a shocking 1 in 7. That's using today's figures: it was even more back then.
I remember respectable bodies estimating 0.5% or 1% mortality rate, though I can't find a WHO source that is more committal than "it appears to be worse than seasonal influenza". I'd call it a calculated risk.
To know the actual mortality rate you would have to test every single person in a country. Right now is more of the cultural thing:
How likely is the person experiencing flu-like symptoms to go and test for coronavirus? Seems that in Italy only seriously sick people would go and take test, that's why you have this shocking 1 in 7 rate - because most of the mild cases go undetected.
I don't think this was that obvious. Without widespread testing it was hard to tell how many people had got the virus. In China, 1 in 20 people who tested positive have died. In Italy it's a shocking 1 in 7. That's using today's figures: it was even more back then.
I remember respectable bodies estimating 0.5% or 1% mortality rate, though I can't find a WHO source that is more committal than "it appears to be worse than seasonal influenza". I'd call it a calculated risk.