Yeah, one leap I often see made is, say a study shows "only" a 0.5% case fatality rate, about 5x as bad as an average flu. It's natural from there to then thin

Yeah, one leap I often see made is, say a study shows "only" a 0.5% case fatality rate, about 5x as bad as an average flu. It's natural from there to then think letting it run unchecked would only be about 5x as bad as a flu. Very bad, certainly, but perhaps manageable. But that ignores the fact that there is a flu vaccine, and even without one the natural rate of spread of the flu is lower than this virus. So without measures, many more people would be infected and so it would be much worse than 5x an average flu, even if the CFR is indeed 0.5% (for example). Of course, that doesn't mean these numbers aren't useful for planning and determining what degree of intervention is warranted, as you say. Edit: could one of those down-voting explain? If I'm making a mistake here I'd like to understand it.