> At this stage the low fatalities (0.5%) goes out of the window and start looking at just under 10%. A lot of people are throwing out numbers somewhat randoml

> At this stage the low fatalities (0.5%) goes out of the window and start looking at just under 10%. A lot of people are throwing out numbers somewhat randomly here. If we had no hospitals at all, the worst possible case would be everyone requiring hospitalization dies. Right now among the elderly it's about 40% of those who require hospitalization end up dying. Thus the worst case would be 100% or a 2.5x increase. Among the middle aged, hospitalization survival rates are about 10%, so a 10x increase in death rates worst case. Neither of these worst case scenarios are especially realistic because hospitals are pretty good at surging; and if people need to be triaged, you triage the people who are most likely to die anyway (thereby changing the actual death rate very little). Thirdly, a good chunk of people who get hospitalized would just survive on their own anyway. There is the non trivial problem that other healthcare concerns (like unrelated heart attacks) are harder to treat. That doesn't mean it's negligible. A 1 percentage point increase in mortality is a lot of people. But a 20x increase from 0.5% to 10% is preposterous and apocalyptic.