Fair enough, but would there be a reason it would be different? And even if it were, is that actually relevant?

Anyway, here's some IFR estimations for covid by Imperial college: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3...

You see significantly higher multipliers by age group than for flu. As one example, they are guessing teenagers have 1/17th the mortality rate of say a 40 year old. For flu (going by deaths), it's about 1/5th.

There is absolutely plenty of reason for the infection rate to be different by demographic: we closed schools down. We don’t do that for the flu.

We also don't Shelter in place for flu. Bay Area school closure date is 1 day before SIP.

Sweden and Iceland never closed schools for young kids. Data doesn't look any different.

Sweden has a substantially higher case fatality rate for COVID-19 compared to other industrialized nations, so it's an interesting case.

That’s a good argument.

It's more likely that cases/infections is skewed by age, because we test severe cases more than mild cases, than infections as a whole is skewed by age. Assuming infections are uniformly distributed, or rather have a similar distribution to the flu, seems entirely reasonable until we have good data suggesting otherwise.

There is no reason to believe that infections aren’t skewed by age. We took a wide range of preventative measures that are completely unique within living memory, such as closing down most schools and colleges. Until we’ve actually done statistical analysis on who got sick, any predictions based on historical trends are largely invalid.

Sure, but there is also no reason to believe that they are. There is however very good reason to believe that testing is skewed by age.