Now that the Olympics are postponed Japans cases are increasing more than before.

Time to sanitize any Amazon packages you're getting as a precaution. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/03/24/amazon-warehouse-workers-coronavirus-positive/

People in Japan seems to be more disciplined then here in Europe. People here are still going to buy flowers at the local flower shop (which is still open), and lots of the customers are 60+. Japan with its clear disaster rules and trainings may be way ahead in awerenes of danger. 

Another thing is in asia, their more concerned about transmitting things to others than we are.
In the west, alot of us think "I dont want to get it", instead of "I cant be the one to transmite it to others".

If you think you have something, wear a face mask to prevent infecting others.
In the west, we dont generally wear face masks, anytime we have a cold/flu ect.

We should learn from their culture in this reguard.

5,146 new cases in New York State

2,952 new cases in New York City pic.twitter.com/ST2h4GxTFw

— Steve Lookner (@lookner) March 25, 2020

I feel like Japan is such a clean and tidy country because it's citizens are respectful. Americans are dirty hamsters, can't tell you how many times I've seen people throw trash/cigarettes out of their car, litter on sidewalks, cough/sneeze without covering their mouth, not curbing their mangy mutts, use public restrooms without washing their hands etc;. I'm a germaphobe so I pick up on these things easily and they annoy me to no end. 

My country, Norway, has tested roughly 1.5% of the population, which is probably one of the highest test coverages of any country (more than twice as many per capita as South Korea for instance). We have 3k confirmed cases, which should be a decent enough sample size to draw some conclusions. 

So far, we have 14 dead, which is a less than 0.5% CFR. We have 237 hospital admissions, which is a less than 8% hospitalisation rate. 2.5% of the cases have required intensive care (some of which have sadly perished).

While these numbers might increase a bit (notwithstanding a huge amount of undiagnosed cases, though that would bring the numbers further down), as some cases will progress and get worse, and certainly if our health system gets over capacity, it's easy to see that your estimates are absolutely ludicrous and not based on good data. Data sets from other countries that have done extensive testing tell the same story. Italy's CFR and hospitalization rate are so high because they haven't tested enough people.

This doesn't mean this isn't a serious illness. But you still shouldn't make up numbers, or make wild guesses without having done proper research.

A few days ago, gov Cuomo mentioned they had 3000 ICU spots in hospitals.
And about that many ventilators, even if they supposedly have gotten/bought some more (its unclear if these are there atm).

Apparently they currently have 888 corona virus releated ICU spots taken up.

So New York state is still fine, and not close yet to being overwhelmed.

In denmark we have 1715 (currently) confirmed cases of infected.
we have 350+ hospitalised (~20,4%) and 87 (~5%) in intensive care.

Norways situtation isnt "normal", I think you guys might have tested broadly and "found" alot more asymptomatic people, than in denmark.

In denmark, like most other places in the world, we mainly test those people that show serious "symptoms".

Maybe in norway you guys tested alot of healthy young people, that even though they have the virus, they dont need help (hospitalisation) or Itensive care.

Basically, even though your number is high (3000 > 1700) your numbers of hospitalised & intensive care are smaller.

Why? maybe because in denmark we have more people infected with the virus.
We just dont know, because we havnt tested as many seemingly health people as you have.

"This doesn't mean this isn't a serious illness. But you still shouldn't make up numbers, or make wild guesses without having done proper research."

You dont understand what a "worst case scenario is".

No place in the world, would ever let the virus spread like that, so its never going to show up like that anywhere.
That doesnt mean it cannot happend, or that it isnt a realistic worst case scenario.

"it's easy to see that your estimates are absolutely ludicrous and not based on good data."

^ i know that Teeqoz.
Every countries in the world is doing their best to stop the virus and slow it.
The numbers I talked about, are for a country that does nothing to stop the virus, and it somehow infects 70% of the population.
Which no sane country leaders would ever allow to happend.

So its based on a "unreal" situation, that showcases a "worst case" (absolutely worst, thing that could ever happend because of this).

There has been experts that said, if nothing is done, it could spread to 70% of the entire population of some countries.
There are places where hospitalisation is 20%.
2,5% mortality rate is lower, than many places (compaired to confirmed cases).

I think you mis-understood my post.

This was just because someone used a "best case" + "worst case" situation, and gave really low numbers for a worst possible outcome type of deal.
My point was his numbers were obviously wrong, because it can do worse than that.

The point is that we have tested more people.... That is why our data is more accurate.... which is why our data is useful for extrapolation, while Italy's - and Denmarks - isn't.

A 15% mortality rate isn't a worst case scenario. It's just wrong. Any projection - even a worst case scenario projection - has to look at the data. If not you might as well say that the worst case is a 100% mortality rate. Both 15% and 100% are nonsense and equally worthless as worst case secnarios.

If you don't care about the quality of the dataset, you can draw whatever conclusion you want. I could use only the cases that have died and say "oh, in my dataset, everyone with the disease died, so the worst case is a 100% mortality rate". Obviously, that is misleading at best, and malicious at worst. That is what you are doing, though taken to the extreme.

You seem to understand that the Norwegian dataset is of higher quality, so I can't understand why you'd disregard it and use lower quality datasets.