@“Cardinal Fang” - Google is your friend. In the interests of brevity, I’ll only cite to this one brief NPR article from yesterday, indicating preliminary IFR based on serology testing for Indiana and New York at 0.58% and ~0.5%, respectively: https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/05/28/863944333/antibody-tests-point-to-lower-death-rate-for-the-coronavirus-than-first-thought
We will soon learn some important data. Florida has been undertaking extensive serology testing for almost three weeks now, and is due to report the findings later today. However, we have preliminary data from Miami-Dade County, the largest in Florida (2.7 million people, 633 dead - yes, that’s all), which suggest that COVID penetration is a bit more than 6%. Extrapolating, 633/2,720,000 = 0.00023 * 1/>0.06 = <0.38% IFR.
This estimated IFR is also consistent with practically contiguous Palm Beach County data (cites omitted because we will have much better data later today, but 315/1,500,00 = 0.00021, with significantly older age skew as regards nursing homes and retirement communities).
As I said, we will know much more later today, but given the age skews in Miami-Dade and Palm Beach, 0.38% local IFR is perfectly consistent with the national range of 0.20-0.50% I offered, and not inconsistent with the CDC estimate of 0.26% across all age and risk cohorts. It is also consistent with the Gangelt data from Germany, which also suggested 0.24-0.26% IFR.
The reality is that this virus is not nearly as deadly as initially feared. Due to the order of magnitude greater risks faced by the elderly, your hypothesized 13% IFR for the 80+ cohort is not plausible. Honestly, even a 4% IFR is not going to be plausible given the ranges of estimated IFR across the entire population thus far.
As these data and estimates become more widely known, it will be very difficult to garner public support for continued lockdowns and draconian restrictions, as the risks to the under 65 group appear to be vanishingly small.