It really isn't if you are starting from an extremely low baseline.

Depends on historical variance, no? The baseline was half a percent of hundreds of millions of people. It’s a lot of additional deaths.

So we should just ignore these numbers? Does this not warrant more information about what is causing these deaths?

I suspect you misunderstood the parent's point. Not being mind-boggling doesn't imply we should ignore it.

Because the quoted source is literally making the comparison, which I am saying is incorrect because his data is biased. Please reread the piece I quoted to see the comparison

>that’s it’s not elderly people who are dying, but “primarily working-age people 18 to 64”

You're being oddly pedanti? He could mean any number of things with that mention of elderly people.

Because he is making claims of fact based on his available data. I am saying the statement is incorrect

He also, in the article, mentions that he is looking at other companies in the market. "We are seeing, right now, the highest death rates we have seen in the history of this business – not just at OneAmerica".

Anywho without more info about what access to data he is making his observations on, we're just speculating. Definitely can't say he is factually wrong with the vague and open bits of info from the article. It's just quotes that could mean almost anything.