> Also, the non lethal, non-mild cases, are at least 15%, which means hospitalization. Can I get a source here? Are you basing this off of the "case hospitaliz

> Also, the non lethal, non-mild cases, are at least 15%, which means hospitalization. Can I get a source here? Are you basing this off of the "case hospitalization rate"? Because that number will overestimate the true hospitalization rate by a factor of 2-100x depending on where you're talking about. Same principle of looking at CFR vs IFR (although ironically CFR will start trending down, not just in the real sense as doctors get better at not overreacting with early intubation, but also in a numerical sense as states like Florida are clearly misrepresenting their case numbers which will make the denominator larger) As one example, in the population of people who can actually still get bad outcomes but have the best outcomes - people in their 20's - the implied hospitalization rate from serology studies gives us something like 1 out of 500 young people getting hospitalized (see https://esb.nu/blog/20059695/we-kunnen-nu-gaan-rekenen-aan-corona https://esb.nu/blog/20059695/we-kunnen-nu-gaan-rekenen-aan-c...). So that gives us a lower bound, and a semi-decent upper bound would be the 3.4% hospitalization rate in the 60-69 age group. (They don't seem to report >69 years, which would be way worse) <--- Note that study I found a couple months ago at least, so there are probably better numbers out somewhere now, but I lost some motivation to keep doing SARS-2 research once BLM started because it became clear that it was never really about saving lives in the first place. Although that's a topic for another day)