At least we can boil this down to a simple misread of the article. That's not a big deal.
The article says:
1. They estimate the current IFR to be 0.6%, but some other guy says it could be as low as 0.15%.
2. They don't talk about CFR because it is unreliable (which is basically true).
3. Generally available sources put the CFR currently above 1.0%t to 1.5%. Again, that's not much use but that's the number.
I think point 1 is where the confusion lies. The article doesn't say the CFR is 0.6% (no one does). It says that the (IFR) fatality rate is estimated to have dropped from 0.9% to 0.6%. It also says that one research says it "could be" as low as 0.15%. That sounds like a range (if your range is 0.15 to 0.95, then it "could be" 0.15), but clearly the article doesn't rely on that number. It presupposes the 0.6% IFR number.
This thing has killed multiple times the number of people the flu does. It's a bad hombre. We are getting better at handling it, for sure. But it's not the flu or anything like it.