I find this response defense odd.

I think using that statistic (assuming it is right) to have a discussion about go-forward policies is sound. In other words, do we use that statistic to discuss whether those with comorbidities should be protected while those without move forward more freely? That's a rational discussion. My kids' schools are openly full-time this week and none of us could be happier; I'm all for openly safely.

Using the statistic in some effort to minimize the deaths of nearly 200K seems absurd and likely to fail.