Quote:
No, it's not. There are 2 assumptions that are simply false: he uses mortality rate of 1.5% (which is the current WHO estimate) with the dataset of the currently tested positive. No, the 1.5% number is the result of applyng a similar data processing to the currently tested positive, death rate with respect to the people tested positive is much higher (15% in Belgium, 13% in Italy and UK, 12% in France, 10% in Spain, 5.5% in the USA). If you apply the same adjustement twice, you are not adjusting. You are getting completely wrong numbers. Even the second adjustement (96% of the cases gets unnoticed) is likely wrong: current consensus in Italy, for instance, is that there are 8 to 10 cases that go unnoticed for every person tested positive, which means that the number he should use is closer to 90% than 96% (which again makes some difference). And again the mortality of the CoVid appears to be somewhere between 1 and 2%, which is what the WHO says.
Heck, he should at least have taken a look at the data he was starting from (Iceland): mortality there is 0.5%, likely because positives gets controlled and treated very early and around 15% of the population has been tested. Experience is that if elder people wait until oxigen saturation is below 90% and they actually need oxigen before accessing the hospital, death is a much more likely outcome, so they should check saturation (but a lot of the times they do not know for sure to be infected before accessing the hospital).

Bottom line: it will likely take more time before there is no danger anymore, and death toll might continue to increase.

Kind regards,
Andrea