Risk management is the correct way to go when uncertainty is high. Containment was the correct approach at the time.
When evidence starts coming in, then you can start applying evidence based approaches.
> Mortality rate: Mortality and morbidity rates are also downward biased, due to the lag between identified cases, deaths and reporting of those deaths [1]
> Among 3,711 Diamond Princess passengers and crew, 712 (19.2%) had positive test results for SARS-CoV-2 (Figure 1). Of these, 331 (46.5%) were asymptomatic at the time of testing. Among 381 symptomatic patients, 37 (9.7%) required intensive care, and nine (1.3%) died (8) . . . As of March 13, among 428 U.S. passengers and crew, 107 (25.0%) had positive test results for COVID-19; 11 U.S. passengers remain hospitalized in Japan (median age = 75 years), including seven in serious condition (median age = 76 years) [2].
Based on the second source, who can still seriously believe that the naive death rate is too conservative, because all the people in intensive care just have not died yet?
Look at the deaths/recoveries in Singapore and Hong Kong for more evidence [3][4].
Whereas, if you compare fatality rates reported by Germany, SK, HK, Singapore and other high testers vs China, Italy and Spain, it's pretty clear the latter are under-diagnosing mild/asymptomatic cases, which increase their fatality rate by a factor of 10 or more.
[1] https://necsi.edu/systemic-risk-of-pandemic-via-novel-pathog...
[2] https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6912e3.htm?s_cid=mm...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_H...
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_S...
When evidence starts coming in, then you can start applying evidence based approaches.
> Mortality rate: Mortality and morbidity rates are also downward biased, due to the lag between identified cases, deaths and reporting of those deaths [1]
> Among 3,711 Diamond Princess passengers and crew, 712 (19.2%) had positive test results for SARS-CoV-2 (Figure 1). Of these, 331 (46.5%) were asymptomatic at the time of testing. Among 381 symptomatic patients, 37 (9.7%) required intensive care, and nine (1.3%) died (8) . . . As of March 13, among 428 U.S. passengers and crew, 107 (25.0%) had positive test results for COVID-19; 11 U.S. passengers remain hospitalized in Japan (median age = 75 years), including seven in serious condition (median age = 76 years) [2].
Based on the second source, who can still seriously believe that the naive death rate is too conservative, because all the people in intensive care just have not died yet?
Look at the deaths/recoveries in Singapore and Hong Kong for more evidence [3][4].
Whereas, if you compare fatality rates reported by Germany, SK, HK, Singapore and other high testers vs China, Italy and Spain, it's pretty clear the latter are under-diagnosing mild/asymptomatic cases, which increase their fatality rate by a factor of 10 or more.
[1] https://necsi.edu/systemic-risk-of-pandemic-via-novel-pathog...
[2] https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6912e3.htm?s_cid=mm...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_H...
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_S...