> But it still suggests that if the virus had been allowed to spread uncontained, death tolls would be several times what they are now. There's a presumption t

> But it still suggests that if the virus had been allowed to spread uncontained, death tolls would be several times what they are now. There's a presumption there that everyone is equally susceptible to the virus at any given viral load. There are likely people whose bodies are inhospitable enough to the virus that it never reaches a titer enough to trigger any sort of test. What percentage of the population is this? 1%? 20%? 60%? If it were allowed to spread uncontained, death tolls would certainly be higher. But can we really say "several times"? I'm not sure. Maybe, 1x more, on account of if california were as bad as new york. But still, we don't really know.