Hey Mike, hope I can help. I’m trying to get my head round your confusion Basically, Erickson says that, because X% of tested patients are positive, then we can reasonably say that the numbers will be the same for the non-tested. By doing this, you can say, “it’s not 10,000 who have had the disease, it’s 1,000,000! And look, the death rate remains the same. Therefore the mortality rate is very low.” The problem being that the number of assumed infections has been hugely inflated, as of course you can’t extrapolate to the general population conclusions based on those getting tested. Those being tested are far more likely to have the disease. So instead of dividing the no. of deaths by a smaller number, you get to make it a huge number and all of a sudden you’ve got a minuscule number of deaths per infected person. Which simply isn’t true. Hope that helps. We all want life to return to normal, and yes, initial estimates for the mortality rate were too high. But we know enough to understand that this is much more deadly than the flu, and caution should be exercised. If you’re still unsure, listen to the repeated talking points that you hear here: – death rates are being exaggerated by doctors for money! (There is no real evidence of this, and it’s just as likely many deaths, particularly those at home or in nursing homes, are being missed) – Bill Gates! (Because why not?) – Mandatory vaccinations! (Because life-saving interventions are now bad) – The economy! (I know, it’s tough, but lives) – pff, 0.5 – 1% is nothing (it’s not) and it’s only the old who die (well, infections can be passed on to the elderly. Also: it’s not) Peace.