Italy has had 24114 deaths. If take those as being in Northern Italy with a 27,000,000 population, that's 0.8931 % of the entire population. Even adjusting for age, that can't squared with 0.002% death rate [wrong wrong, it's 0.08931%, which is possible but with a huge infection rate, which maybe].
For example:
> So a 0.002% "fatality rate" relative to total exposures,
You appear to be deriving this from the computation 601/221000. That gives .27%, not 0.002%.
> Italy has had 24114 deaths. If take those as being in Northern Italy with a 27,000,000 population, that's 0.8931% of the entire population
No it's not. 1% of 27M is 270k, not 27k.
Yeah, 0.08931% of the population of Italy experienced fatality.
If we assume .2% fatality rate, that implies 50% of the population was infected (which might make sense with an extremely contagious virus but that's more than even the cruise ships).
Florida has 20% of it's population over 65 and it's 21 million people might similarly be rather hard hit.
It's totally despicable, and it's not my position.
I propose we do what the UK proposed, and what Sweden is doing: keep all vulnerable folks inside, provide them with services such as groceries and any healthcare they may need on-site, and release the low risk to build a protective barrier of herd immunity around them. That should have been evident when I said "old people were hundreds of times worse off."
That's totally orthogonal to my point, which is that you can't project the mortality rate of a population that's overwhelmingly disproportionately affected, scale it linearly onto the world population and assume that'll be at all representative of the reality on the ground.
And yes, Florida may be affected very badly, and the plan may need to be adjusted accordingly.