Using the shorter period, then the number of fatalities today can be assessed against the confirmed cases that existed when the fatal case contracted the virus. Either method can be used, but the basis needs to be known. CNN etc are using current cases, vs current deaths, that is correct in a post event review, but will give a lower figure than looking at how big a problem really exists. Due to the relatively rapid spread of the current cases, surpassing SARS totals in the first month of the known outbreak, then prudence would seem to be worthwhile. This is every bit as nasty as SARS was, and is spreading at a fair rate.
Chris Martenson's work on this virus is first rate.
The NEJOM case study into Germany proved asymptomatic transmission and generational transmission rates were increasing.
The concern being R0 could well exceed SARS.
The interesting thing about it, is that
Patient 1 had two day
direct contact with index patient,
patient 2 only a day: They were at a business meeting.
Patients 3 and 4 only contact with Patient 1.
All patients contracted nCov, BUT (and it was only a hypothesis),
that perhaps, just maybe outside China, many transmissions can be managed without hospital admission.
Like or dislike the Trump administration, but what the US did was actually provide a way to stop transmission by stopping travel. Weasel words from the WHO weren't "recommending" travel restrictions.
Ever the dullard, Morrison had to move. The USA have pincered Australia, who now have reluctantly applied a ban. "Self Quarantine" for Chinese Permanent residents of Australia sure to be effective /sarc