[Trust but Verify]

I guess you will have the right to attack the journalists at Wired News ...

Actually, I have the right to disagree and demean their journalism any time I want!

And I still say it's fuzzy math regardless of who is doing it. When they figure out other mortality rates, do they use this method of excluding those who are sick but haven't yet recovered or succumbed? My guess would be no.

[ex-Texan]

And I still say it's fuzzy math regardless of who is doing it . . .

'Fuzzy math' -- by medical scientists qualified with years of reasearch and statistics .... ?

I believe the good doctors. Sorry. I happen to have two advanced degrees myself and studied statistics at the graduate level.

'Nuff said. Over and out.

[harpseal]

And I still say it's fuzzy math regardless of who is doing it. When they figure out other mortality rates, do they use this method of excluding those who are sick but haven't yet recovered or succumbed? My guess would be no.

I do not know the answer to this one for most other diseases but when discussing smallpox the 30% mortality rate means of every 100 infected by the time the disease has run its course 30 will be dead from the disease.

[DB]

Death rates can only be computed from the final outcomes, be it recovered or dead. The number infected verses dead is useless for the "death rate" as the outcome is yet unknown for those infected and neither dead or recovered. Meaningfull numbers are based on two knowns... Using one unknown with a known will result with a meaningless result.