I’ve also heard that 40-70% figure (e.g. from German public health officials like the director of Germany’s equivalent of the CDC). But I’m confused for the reason you stated. So I’d also appreciate an answer.
Some hypotheses (other than the 40-70% being just wrong) I can think of, though my guess is none of them is right:
(a) The 40-70% are a very long-term figure like risk of life-time infection assuming that the virus becomes permanently endemic.
(b) There being many more undetected than confirmed cases.
(c) The slowdown in new cases in Hubei only being temporary, i.e. expecting it to accelerate again and reaching 40-70% there.
(d) Thinking that the virus will spread more widely outside of Hubei, e.g. because one expects less drastic prevention/mitigation measures. [ETA: This comment seems to point to (d).]
I’ve also heard that 40-70% figure (e.g. from German public health officials like the director of Germany’s equivalent of the CDC). But I’m confused for the reason you stated. So I’d also appreciate an answer.
Some hypotheses (other than the 40-70% being just wrong) I can think of, though my guess is none of them is right:
(a) The 40-70% are a very long-term figure like risk of life-time infection assuming that the virus becomes permanently endemic.
(b) There being many more undetected than confirmed cases.
(c) The slowdown in new cases in Hubei only being temporary, i.e. expecting it to accelerate again and reaching 40-70% there.
(d) Thinking that the virus will spread more widely outside of Hubei, e.g. because one expects less drastic prevention/mitigation measures. [ETA: This comment seems to point to (d).]