Do you have an argument against this other than die in a fire? In the UK the government is literally advising people to NOT call the NHS if they suspect they are infected but stay home and self isolate unless they become severely ill and cannot cope. It's pretty reasonable to assume the denominator is much larger from this behaviour.
You can read the discussion of the reasons to be pretty certain of the 1%+ fatality rate and how that's catastrophic on the rest of my thread and in more detail elsewhere. As to the UK plan, look here:
"I'm an epidemiologist, when I heard the UK plan, I thought it was satire":
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/mar/15/epidem...
Your link shows the seriously ill among the unclosed cases as 59 people. If those dies, it won't increase the death significantly - maybe bump it to 1.5%.
But an increase to the base death rate doesn't matter. We should know a 1% death rate is going to be catastrophic and take action.
Edit: originally read you as arguing the death rate as too high so different argument. It's probably better to assume a higher death rate regardless anyway so I changed "you are wrong" to "not quite right" too.
The only out way is to test everybody in a large random sample. Even South Korea doesn't do that - people volunteer or a pushed to get tested. The end result is all testing to date has been done on the parts of population who are more likely to be feeling the effects of covid-19.
That skews everything. Even "every person infects 2.3 others" becomes suspect if there is a large reservoir of people out there who have it, are infectious but don't know it. Kids in particular, being the little germ bags they are, areseemingly mostly unaffected by it and so could be a huge vector.
Counting the dead after it's over is one way to by-pass that measurement problem. In Australia, a bad flu season kills 0.015% of the population. My gut feeling is we don't as yet have any idea where covid-19 will end up. Italy is currently sitting at 0.0083%, so they aren't up to the flu levels yet. The current overwhelming of the hospitals could be caused by an extraordinarily high infection rate coupled with it being very, very mild for most people, particularly kids. Or it could because it's as horrible as the media paints it. We simply don't know.
This won't be the case for other countries. 1% is way too optimistic at this point.
The fatality rate was 0.8%. The majority of their passengers were over 60 years old, so even this number is too high compared to the global population.
Even that would be catastrophic for if the virus infects a large percentage of the population, as it is rapidly moving to do. Thus we cannot be even in the least bit sanguine on this and need to move with speed against it. This is in no way comparable to 2009 or other recent events (contrary to your ggp).
Basically, there's enough information currently to tell people who pay attention and consider rationally that we need to spend every possible effort confining infections and quarantining, basically the entire earth. There is no alternative.
At the start, the "Many thousands of mildly symptomatic infections aren't recorded" claim had plausibility. Now it needs to die in fire. This stuff has demonstrated it's qualities at scale and we need to get with it.