Tests per 1mm/pop:
US - 140k
Chile - 71k
Kuwait - 106k
Singapore - 172k (most definitely not a 2nd or 3rd world country. HDI 7th in the world and GDP/pc 8th in the world. Both higher than the U.S.)
You're stacking your numbers and assuming a worst and numerically impossible scenario. When you take into account asymptomatic cases that are extrapolated via serology samples and not just the positive PCR tests you get a fatality rate of 0.24% (and falling) with a huge age gradient down to less than 0.008% for those under 40.
Knowing that the vast majority of cases are asymptomatic dramatically lowers the scary numbers you just threw out. And you must know by now the prevalence of asymptomatic cases.
Also [5] has a sample size of 36 from May, can't tell if it's peer reviewed.
[6] is a mish-mash of CDC numbers so not sure what you're pointing to.
[2] Though worth noting, I don't think 19.7% is indicative of anything out of the range of ordinary when you consider the at-risk group for covid. You would need to control this by age and all-cause mortality. Same for [4] and [5]
The question of "with" vs "from" covid is very real. Now, I'm not saying that covid is benign. It can do damage. What I'm saying that it is significantly less dangerous than people that want to remain in lock down would lead you to believe.
src: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
You're stacking your numbers and assuming a worst and numerically impossible scenario. When you take into account asymptomatic cases that are extrapolated via serology samples and not just the positive PCR tests you get a fatality rate of 0.24% (and falling) with a huge age gradient down to less than 0.008% for those under 40.
At most it's 1%. That is the highest of any estimate I've seen. Here are a few dozen https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01738-2
Knowing that the vast majority of cases are asymptomatic dramatically lowers the scary numbers you just threw out. And you must know by now the prevalence of asymptomatic cases.
Also [5] has a sample size of 36 from May, can't tell if it's peer reviewed.
[6] is a mish-mash of CDC numbers so not sure what you're pointing to.
[2] Though worth noting, I don't think 19.7% is indicative of anything out of the range of ordinary when you consider the at-risk group for covid. You would need to control this by age and all-cause mortality. Same for [4] and [5]
The question of "with" vs "from" covid is very real. Now, I'm not saying that covid is benign. It can do damage. What I'm saying that it is significantly less dangerous than people that want to remain in lock down would lead you to believe.