in terms of an age corrected population distribution, actually I think you'll find it's lower. that's the whole point of "at risk" in this scenario being mostly age >70yr (or wherever you chose to draw your risk factors) also this is tends to be over-estimating as the reported infection rates are failing to account for asymptomatic carriers which themselves follow an age-based distribution (I'm sorry but as far as a systematic goes, this is poorly recorded, poorly understood and very very poorly modelled, which is made even worse by the politicization of cv19 causing an mis-representation in people volunteering for randomized testing in a large number of western datasets). Again in very high population countries with poor vaccine rates, uptake and very slow roll-out we didn't end up with hundreds of thousands of bodies stacked high ready to be buried. that unfortunately is a large-scale uncomfortable truth to quite a few.
>in terms of an age corrected population distribution, actually I think you'll find it's lower
The data I linked is giving IFR for each age band, so that people see the actual data instead of sweeping affirmations like "the IFR is X" or "the IFR isn't X".
The data is also coming from multiple studies, some under very controlled conditions with systematic testing, such as military service recruits, or prisoners.
>Again in very high population countries with poor vaccine rates, uptake and very slow roll-out we didn't end up with hundreds of thousands of bodies stacked high ready to be buried. that unfortunately is a large-scale uncomfortable truth to quite a few.
I leave this here:
https://www.aljazeera.com/gallery/2021/4/26/mass-funeral-pyr...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/30/brazil-manaus-...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jun/27/ive-seen-too-m...
It is your negation of reality (and the death of so many people) that might be uncomfortable. Very uncomfortable.