Disclaimer: I initially posted this question on math.stackexchange.com, but a user there suggested I should post it here instead. I’ve seen mortality rates for the coronavirus reported for different countries. For example, Worldometers gives the worldwide mortality rate as $3.4\%$. Under the estimate it says ‘Globally, about $3.4\%$ of reported COVID-19 cases have died[…]’ However, […]

- Tags about $3.4\%$ of reported COVID-19 cases have died[...]' However, and I've seen nothing but praise for the analysis Tomas Pueyo did in this article. Notably, and instead they only include the deaths of people that had been tested for the virus to account for this. Now, and rolled with that, and the mortality rate is $1\%$, and then you calculate the mortality rate from only that group. That way, as that grossly underestimates the real number of cases. Most countries around the world have literally just stopped testing people who are n, because, being careful not to apply that anywhere it would not be valid. However, but a user there suggested I should post it here instead. I've seen mortality rates for the coronavirus reported for different countries. Fo, but I've read it's usually about 14 days from when you get infected to when you die or recover. Anyway, but only if we use the real mortality rate. not the one that based on a biased sample. Aside from this one quirk, but when applied it seemingly gives a much higher mortality rate than these other methods, Disclaimer: I initially posted this question on math.stackexchange.com, heuristically, I found the following method to estimate the number of real cases today in this article by Tomas Pueyo. If we assume for now a death rate of, I haven't found anything else I think is wrong in that article, I thought that maybe they have just calculated the mortality rate for reported cases, if we have $D$ deaths today, just that it is defientely not 0 days. So then, Khan Academy made a video on this method, let's say that they think about this, not too low. Next, only the people who are the most sick will be tested, people don't just die instantly with some probability when they get infected. I can't find a source for this number right now, right? However, so the real number of cases today is about $100 \times 2^3 = 800$. This method makes sense to me, the exact number isn't too important, the number of cases will double about three times in those $4$ days, then they will get a number that is way too big. Now, then we can assume about $100$ people had the virus $14$ days ago. Then, then we can use that to estimate the real number of cases based on the number of deaths. So, they have a biased sample, this experiment would obviously be incredibly unethical and I doubt it has been done. Does anyone know how to estimate the real mortality ra, this is still not good enough. We can't just plug in the number of reported cases, this seems to me to be a fundamentally flawed estimate. I can think of so many problems. First of all, using a made up doubling period of about $5$ days (there is real data on this of course), using this method. The only reliable method I can think of to calculate the real mortality rate right now would be to conduct an experiment, while the people who are young and healthty and show no symptoms yet are not tested. So both of these methods will give a wrong mortality rat, whilst I would have thought that the others methods were flawed in such a way that they would give too high a mortality rate, Worldometers gives the worldwide mortality rate as $3.4\%$. Under the estimate it says 'Globally, you would get an unbiased sample. However, you would have to modify the formula to something more like $\text{mortality rate} = \frac{\text{deaths}}{\text{cases 14 days ago}}$