adjusting the CV-19 statistics -- any ideas?

[TreadSoftly]

Looking at the doubts about quantity of reported deaths...I am reminded of Emile Durkheim, the great early sociologist. If I recall correctly...he was assessing suicide and realized that if he added the accidental deaths to suicides, he'd get the same number of deaths. Difference is that Catholic countries reluctant to admit suicides would simply code as accidents.

Wondering if similar official mis-reporting is occurring with CV-19. Could we adjust to find a better CV-19 -- add up all the deaths and subtract out the typical rate for time of year.

Just musing but I wanted your thoughts, DU. I think "Suicide" in English is still on my shelf & maybe I'll have a nice read.

[Fresh_Start]

1. I am also suspicious that a lot of additional deaths are/will occur

but not added to the CV19 statistics.

[jimfields33]

2. I'd like them to show recovered on the networks

Over 122,000 people worldwide have recovered. That’s a statistic for hope.

[hlthe2b]

3. I think they will eventually partially correct when test results catch up but one could logically

adjust by the EXCESS in pneumonia deaths not accounted for by confirmed COVID or other identified causes. We have decades of data on ILI (influenza-like illness and pneumonia trends). It would be easly enough to do.

[Phoenix61]

4. Pull data on deaths from flu and it's complications

over the past several years. Compare to current data. Establish a base line and assign all deaths over that as untested CV deaths. Docs are reporting not everyone getting tested before they die and some not getting tested after.

[pat_k]

6. Makes sense to me

I love to see an analysis like this.

In WA, data from their flu study would help to make any corrections for overall reduction in flu rates related to all the social distancing.

[pat_k]

5. A couple thoughts in post on...

California "surge"

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=13179278