[Goose]

If you look at the weekly naive CFR (weekly deaths divided by weekly cases), it peaked at 6% in early April, but has been falling since then, and has been hovering around 3% the last couple weeks.  My guess is you are right, more testing is finding minimally symptomatic and (a few) asymptomatic patients who are at low risk for death.

BC

That mostly works for me. However, I am greatly bothered that San Mateo County seems to have so many more "residual" cases than Santa Clara County, which is a significantly larger county that it is right next to. Can't be testing availability, as both use Stanford as the processing center. Also, the Northern California counties seem to be somewhat "stuck" at levels of illness higher than we see in Germany or Italy. Even New York seems to have behaved in a more "classical" manner. Once again, why? Whenever I see something that doesn't seem to fit what we have been led to expect, I worry that there is an undetected level of pathology hidden in the weeds.

[Goose]

If you look at the weekly naive CFR (weekly deaths divided by weekly cases), it peaked at 6% in early April, but has been falling since then, and has been hovering around 3% the last couple weeks.  My guess is you are right, more testing is finding minimally symptomatic and (a few) asymptomatic patients who are at low risk for death.

BC

That mostly works for me. However, I am greatly bothered that San Mateo County seems to have so many more "residual" cases than Santa Clara County, which is a significantly larger county that it is right next to. Can't be testing availability, as both use Stanford as the processing center. Also, the Northern California counties seem to be somewhat "stuck" at levels of illness higher than we see in Germany or Italy. Even New York seems to have behaved in a more "classical" manner. Once again, why? Whenever I see something that doesn't seem to fit what we have been led to expect, I worry that there is an undetected level of pathology hidden in the weeds.