Select to expand quote
SP said..Agree The numbers are all over the shop.
They are that distorted and skewed via bias that no real statistician would take them seriously. To many factors that cause them to be inaccurate.
This came up a few pages back. What about the people who had it who they didn't test? Wouldn't that skew the number back the other way?
And on the other hand deaths attributed that weren't tested?
This is a pretty decent article that highlights some of the bias built into the numbers
medium.com/swlh/why-you-shouldnt-believe-the-coronavirus-death-rate-e52f6ba78806 YES we finally agree on something

Exactly what I have been telling people as well, no accurate datum equates to crap results.
Statistically this is called a Z value or the value attached to the level of confidence based on the statistical sample size.
The greater the sample size in relation to say the population the higher the confidence in the statistics presented.
So mathematically and based on the sample sizes due to the testing availability the data being presented is absolute crap, and insufficient to warrant the actions implemented.
However anecdotally based on actual observation of the effect of the virus it is evident that this little critter is far more deadly than the common cold or flu.
Those figures actually warrant taking of action to contain the potential for a pandemic.
This is where the gov has to balance things, to over react with extreme sanctions will cause greater suffering and damage in the long term than the virus itself.
To do nothing would allow a pandemic to run rampant and decimate our health system and services.
Tough gig to be a PM or President right now, last thing that wins your next election in becoming unpopular to the point of an uprising.