> Which was the point of both the OP and the buzzfeed article that I pointed. Sorry if my comment was clumsy. I realize that you are aware of everything I sai

> Which was the point of both the OP and the buzzfeed article that I pointed. Sorry if my comment was clumsy. I realize that you are aware of everything I said. I didn't intend it to be novel. Trying again: On a superficial level, there's been a lot of media coverage of the number of confirmed infections (the denominator). On a slightly more advanced level, there have been calls to pay more attention to the actual number of deaths (the numerator). These discussions properly point out that deaths (which can theoretically be counted) are likely to be more accurate than infection numbers (which can only be estimated). This article (and the one you linked) are pointing out that that the number of deaths due to COVID-19 also has significant uncertainty. My comment was trying to make clear why this matters: not for you, but for others who have been paying attention mostly to the media coverage. Perhaps this 538 article makes the point better: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-its-so-freaking-hard-to-make-a-good-covid-19-model/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-its-so-freaking-har... (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22746780 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22746780).