> So now you accept that I wasn't off by 2 orders of magnitude.
You're right, but it doesn't make the numbers you're citing any more relevant.
> SARS, MERS and COVID are not flu viruses, they're coronaviridae. H1N1 and H5N1 are mutations/subtypes of the Influenza A virus. The coronaviridae are different.
Who is being pedantic now? The point is that novel viruses are not a once in a lifetime occurrence, so you can't compare the risk of "COVID-19" to "lifetime death rate", since a new novel virus will come along in a few years. The danger is not covid-19 in particular, but novel viruses in general, and doing nothing would lead to a 1-year fatality rate for a novel virus on par with the lifetime danger of driving. Which means the lifetime danger of the virus is 20x or more the danger of driving. That's
> The study I referenced mentioned 0.1% for the flu vs 0.37% for COVID. Feel free to read it. That would make it 3.7X not 30X. Because the flu has been around so long the fatality rates are largely determined by mathematical modeling, and are very close to the actual fatality rate. On the other hand, we're still figuring it out for COVID.
Yes, but the CFR of the flu is well understood. The CFR of COVID-19 is not, and your entire argument is based on one study which is not conclusive, has had some flaws pointed out elsewhere in this thread, and generally doesn't match observed CFR elsewhere.
> Which is why, scroll back up, we isolate the vulnerable.
Which, ask any epidemiologist, doesn't work, since hospitals get overwhelmed anyway. The hospitalization rate of young people is still pretty high (maybe not quite 20% as it is for the overall population, but still more than 10%), they just don't die with reasonable care. There's a fair number of cases of healthy 20-something year olds who end up hospitalized for a week due or more due to COVID and need ventilators. Not to mention healthy something 40 year olds.
Even if you manage to perfectly isolate every at risk person, there's still a nontrivial risk of overwhelming ICUs anyway. And then the fatality rate among young people would go up as they couldn't get good care. And you're not going to perfectly isolate every at risk person. So the you have more young people hospitalized, more old people hospitalized, and well you're in a bad spot.
Or you end up expanding the definition of "at risk" to include "obese, heart disease, diabetes, or high blood pressure", and you've ended up essentially where we are now, with the majority of the US population in an "at risk" group.
> SK has not tested huge swaths of the population, they've tested around 1%
You realize that for population level statistics, that's fine. That means that 490000 tests have returned negative. If, as the Italians think, 10x as many people are infected, somehow there would need to exist 100K+ infected people, showing no symptoms, basically none of whom appeared in the 490000 negative samples. Such a probability is negligible. The sample sizes are large enough to remove the possibility.