First, most here (and I don’t disagree) are saying the numbers are all incorrect anyhow so using a different calculation accomplishes nothing.
One is still left with the question of what the defined population should be. Moreover, I don’t see why one cannot define the population to be those who are infected so it is not clear to me this is not consistent with the definition. We should also ask should there be multiple defined population, so suggesting a mortality rate largely vacuous. (Something I clearly did not address initially as well.)
Even if it is not correct to call the numbers I generated a mortality rate it seems sensible to have some sense of dangerous the situation and some generic rate definition you linked to really doesn’t much insight to that.
Now that you have a definition for mortality rate—time for an update in your post?
I presume more people will be reading so clarification would be valuable.
I could but don’t think it matters.
First, most here (and I don’t disagree) are saying the numbers are all incorrect anyhow so using a different calculation accomplishes nothing.
One is still left with the question of what the defined population should be. Moreover, I don’t see why one cannot define the population to be those who are infected so it is not clear to me this is not consistent with the definition. We should also ask should there be multiple defined population, so suggesting a mortality rate largely vacuous. (Something I clearly did not address initially as well.)
Even if it is not correct to call the numbers I generated a mortality rate it seems sensible to have some sense of dangerous the situation and some generic rate definition you linked to really doesn’t much insight to that.