That being said, even countries like the US and Canada are saying they expect 60-70% of the population to get it.. so you could say the death rate will be 9% of 60%...
The assumption is that the testing population is currently biased towards more serious cases (e.g. if you are in the hospital you get tested. but if you are in the hospital, you have severe symptoms => higher % will die). On the other hand you could have an entire family of 6 people under the same roof not being tested but all positive. Italy thought something similar and tested an entire village. Loads showed no symptoms and tested positive.
Hence you will have X% of 60%. Question now is what the X is. But 9% seems to be the super pessimistic upper bound.
Not a chance. In Canada, know a bunch of sick people. Our health authorities aren't testing all sick people; until a few days ago only sick people who travelled. Even now only those who are seriously ill.
Guarantee the amount of people with the virus is 10x or more the amount who've tested positive, which would push the death rate way down, but is also concerning in it's own way.
How are you deriving that 1% number when tests are highly skewed toward severe positive cases, and the virus primarily manifests with mild/no symptoms?
It's not me deriving the 1% number. These are the official numbers for the IFR. The CFR is entirely unreliable.
The only good estimates are from the Diamond Princess, as all persons there have been tested. Most countries only test people with symptoms, with about a factor 5 missing. Chinese data is completely unreliable, South Korean best, behind the Diamond Princess.
That being said, even countries like the US and Canada are saying they expect 60-70% of the population to get it.. so you could say the death rate will be 9% of 60%...