Do you have a citation for that? We haven't seen a death rate of 0.2% in any population.
SK (which has the broadest base of testing), Diamond Princess (which offered a unique case study, where we could test every person), and epidemiological estimates are all closer to 1%.
Where are you getting the 0.2% number from?
CFR of 3% - 5% for unprepared areas is not unreasonable. 0.6% is closer to the South Korean experience. https://github.com/CSSEGISandData/covid-19
SK's CFR[1] is currently 0.9% (8,162 cases; 75 deaths).
I haven't seen any source (or reputable estimate) that indicates a 0.2% CFR. So I'm asking for a citation or reference for where that number came from.
[1] data from John's Hopkin's tracker: https://www.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594...
CFR is the fatality rate for diagnosed people and it's gonna swing wildly depending on how many people are tested and diagnosed. And considering how this virus affects young and healthy people, there's good reason to believe that a lot of people get infected and never seek out medical assistance and never get diagnosed.
Even the best numbers we have are often skewed and misleading - as an example, we have a lot of good data from the cruise ship quarantined in Japan, but cruise passengers do not match the demographics of the general population.
All researchers, doctors should see this video & cited papers to evaluate potential.
"but a broad range of 0.25%–3.0% probably should be considered."
The parent said the death rate (without care) jumps from 0.2% to 3% (with care) as if both numbers were known.
An article saying that the death rate (with care) could range anywhere from 0.25%-3.0% seems...like not a solid foundation to make the claim the parent commenter made.