>but it’s a world of difference from the 10% fatality rates being tossed around elsewhere in this thread. I agree. I misspoke when I said very little. I was t

>but it’s a world of difference from the 10% fatality rates being tossed around elsewhere in this thread. I agree. I misspoke when I said very little. I was taking issue with the OPs assertion that 0.5% was a best case mortality rate. I should have said it's closer to an upper bound assuming ideal treatment, since it looks like this is much worse for the elderly.