I don't quite get everyone arguing about these uncertain death rates. It's beyond dispute that over 100,000 people have died in the US, does that somehow become more acceptable if there are twice as many people that have had it but been asymptomatic? Yes, it changes what the worst-case projections are, but isn't it the actual number of deaths that is what's relevant?
I think one of the issues with these analyses of the fatality rate is that it is variable and clearly increases when medical systems are overloaded. This creates an issue with analyses like these which are "technically" correct but don't take into account the fatality rate would be higher if we were not successful in "flattening the curve."
What it suggests is that to monitor your own safety you should keep track of number of cases in your area as well as medical resource usage.
If you are taking your epidemiological guidance from a site called "Conservative Review," which appears to exist mostly to provide Google juice to other sites in Glenn Beck's media network, do me a favor and don't come within ten feet of me without a mask.
On HN we go by article quality, not site quality. I agree that this article is not a good one for discussing the CDC's latest findings about Covid-19 death rates. But please don't post political battle comments to HN.
Is the core statement about CDC / death rate true? If so, is there a more neutral source describing it?