I think your rule of thumb is correct, but I don't see how this implies your corollaries. I think Corollary 1 assumes 100% infection at T_0, which is clearly n

I think your rule of thumb is correct, but I don't see how this implies your corollaries. I think Corollary 1 assumes 100% infection at T_0, which is clearly not true. It's debatable what the correct curve would look like, but even in the worst do-nothing case I don't think it could possibly be this steep. I don't understand the logic for Corollary 2. Even if we assume Corollary 1 (which I'd argue we shouldn't) why would uniformly doubling the average death rate reduce life expectancy by less than 1 month? I can't say for sure that it wouldn't, but I don't think the math is obvious. Could you flesh this out? Your final sentence seems possible, depending on what "much more" means, but I'd like to see more proof. Adding $3T would be equivalent to doubling current US health care spending.