i'm obviously on mike's side of this battle, but this seems more than a tad disingenuous, does it not?
a - 100% of the population isn't going to get it
b - even if they did, given the very limited testing thus far, that mortality rate is likely wayyyyyyyy lower.
is there even a worst case scenario imaginable in which anywhere close to 11M people would die from this thing? why even say that?
I think that Hammer and the Dance article that made its way around last weekend did a good job of laying out ~10M as the sort of upper bound.
Overall though yeah, I think because way too many people are being so flippant about this, there's some overcompensating in the other direction from some people. "Oh you went out for groceries twice this week? THANKS FOR LITERALLY KILLING MY GRANDMA"