And 28 / (142+28) is 16%.
Yup. But you gotta whisper stuff like that.
I did that same calculation a few weeks back and had a bunch of freepers accusing me of basic stupidity. Seems they thought you should simply divide the total number of deaths by the total number of cases. I never did get through to 'em.
Another point the "this is no big deal" crowd often make is that we don't know how many people get sick, but not sick enough to go to the doctor. The contention is that if the mild cases were included we would see that this is not really that bad.
Only thing is, the initial outbreak at Prince of Wales Hospital does not support this contention at all. Almost none of the staff got only mildly sick. They either clearly had it, or they didn't. The same observation holds pretty much everywhere (except in the U.S.).
NOTE: In defense of the "many mild cases" crowd, we do not have a way to test people who do not show symptoms. Hence, many people may be getting mildly sick, but not enough to realize it.
The only place on earth that has shown any sign of many mild cases is the U.S. However, the U.S. has chosen to err on the side of caution. We have chosen to use such a broad definition of SARS they almost anyone with a cold and a history of travel to SE Asia is considered a "possible" SARS victim. Not surprisingly, most U.S. cases are mild.
The final "interesting" point is that the death rate right now is predicated on good medical care for everyone who needs it. SARS seems to be putting around 80% of its victims in the hospital (other than in the U.S.). What happens if/when the medical system gets overwhelmed?