If you are calculating the bounds on a ratio, then you use the smallest denominator you have to establish the upper bound, and the largest denominator to set the lower bound. That’s reported cases and the total population respectively.

The article claims that 0.15% have died. Basic math on the published statistics say at least 0.18% have died in the US, and 0.23% in Brazild, which last I heard is still in the grip of it. Sometimes you should put down your citations and look out the window.

The argument of the article is that people fucked up and we should get to the bottom of it. That The IFR of 0.9% was too high, it’s really 1/6th of that, which sounds pretty damning. It is not an accident when you bring up that actuals are multiples of predicted. The discrepancy is your hook, and a small error does not demand action (ie, let it go).

Hooks that lie are called manipulative.

The author is claiming a factor of 6 overestimation, and by the most cynical reading of the death statistics it cannot possibly be greater than 4, and in all likelihood is more like 2. Ie, let it go, and stop attacking disaster science.