I didn't compare anything. I clearly stated that .56% of people diagnosed in Utah have died. That is not "way off." That is literally the actual number. I was simply stating a fact. I did not try to say that they reflected what the final, overall mortality rate would be. Heck, I didn't even describe it as the mortality rate.

Further, if you want to employ speculation to guess at what the overall mortality rate will be, which is not necessarily bad, then you need to account for people who contracted the virus but weren't tested because they were asymptomatic or had mild symptoms (which is starting to appear to be very, very high). That you tried to cricitize my stating of a literal fact ("99.44% of those who have been tested and diagnosed with Corona Virus in Utah have not died. .56% have died."), but then cherry picked data without reflecting undiagnosed infected is not only hypocritical of you, but embarrassing. Interestingly, in an article in the Lancet Infectious Diseases Journal, scientists adjusted for both issues and figured the mortality rate to be around .66% based on the comprehensive data provided by China. A far cry from your 1.7% and quite close to my number. Utah will likely be even lower than that .66% because we have less smoking and a lower median age.

Further, Dr. Steven Lawrence, an infectious disease expert, who has also looked at the numbers, estimates that the US fatality rate will range from .5% on the low end to 1.0% on the high end, depending on locations that account for age and health factors. Utah will likely be on the lowest end of that range because we have one of the lowest median ages and some of the best average health due to very little smoking.

In summary, mine was not an estimate or an understimate. It was a 100% accurate statement of the current data: "99.44% of those who have been tested and diagnosed with Corona Virus in Utah have not died. .56% have died." It was perfect, accurate math reflecting the current available numbers. Will the numbers stay exactly as they are? Of course not, but you tried to misstate data by speculating and failing to account for infected who weren't diagnosed. You think 1.7% mortality rate in Utah will be an underestimate? Consider your post bookmarked. I can't wait to watch you backtrack that number. The numbers will go up and down, but we'll see what happens in the end, and when we consider ALL the data. I'm pretty confident whose estimate will be furthest off (though, again, I did not estimate — I simply stated the current actual numbers).

I don't even disagree with your point that estimates should account for additional deaths from current infected, but then you must also account for all potential factors, particularly infected and not diagnosed. My point in my post though was merely to state the current numbers.