That’s a perfect example. The text I quoted was from the NEJM discussing the relevance of the 1.4% case fatality rate in serious hospital cases as it pertains

That’s a perfect example. The text I quoted was from the NEJM discussing the relevance of the 1.4% case fatality rate in serious hospital cases as it pertains to the general population. So it’s highly relevant to our discussion here. Here’s the article (again): https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2002387?query=recirc_curatedRelated_article https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2002387?query=rec... The replies I got appear to take issue with the editorial from Fauci, Lane, and Redfield (all M.D.s) I think they erroneously thought that the comment was my own writing and not a quote. > The big point that you are - apparently, correct me if I am wrong - missing is that once the healthcare system is overwhelmed the numbers will change substantially for the worse. For starters, most of the available numbers are the case fatality during a period where the healthcare system (Wuhan) was in fact massively overwhelmed. Second, you state a definitive when it is in fact an assumption. You used the word “ONCE” instead of “IF”. Third, your premise is somewhat circular. I.e. thinking along the lines of, ‘If the ICU rate is 5%, and the R0 is 4 then healthcare services will be overwhelmed making the R0 rise to 4 and the general population ICU rate spike to 5%’. If a functioning system has a overall ICU rate of 0.5% (or 0.05%) and a baseline R0 of 2, then maybe the system just keeps functioning.