Case fatality rate. Not mortality rate. And it is the WHO which you source, but which I question as to impartiality.
From WIKI, which is also not always impartial, but: "The 2002–2004 outbreak of SARS, caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV or SARS-CoV-1), infected over 8,000 people from 29 countries and territories, and resulted in at least 774 deaths worldwide."
As a function of the world's population (death / mortality rate), not the reported cases (CFR), this was a tiny blip on the world's deaths, which the CDC's states amount to about one percent of a given population. What ended the 2002-2004 outbreak? It withered away, as viruses attenuate.
The 2002-2004 "event" was not a media event like this last three years. And the deaths attributed are extremely small by comparison to today's WHO pandemic.
This is an apples-and-oranges comparison. CFR versus mortality rate is a matter of data acquisition and aggregation.
At least "at least 774 deaths worldwide" or "935 associated deaths" is not worthy of being fit into a calculation of the actual mortality rate, so small a result would be found.
One reads from the UM report, " 'a more accurate and unbiased' method of estimation." Estimation is estimation. The number of times the word is used in the article is worth noting. Twenty plus years after an event, "estimation" and "more unbiased estimation" are amusing terms.
So in conclusion, the actual mortality rate for SARS CoV2 calculates as 0.0836 percent. The inverse, the rate of survival, is 99.916 percent.
In a world of almost 8,000,000,000 people, one can refer to a 2002-2004 putbreak and estimates of perhap 1,000 deaths, and quake in one boots. Or not. Because fear is a choice.
The important numbers are CFR and R0 (R-naught*), not deaths compared to world population, when one is predicting the impact of an emergent disease. How deadly is it if contracted, and how easily and quickly does it spread?
SARS-1 had a much higher fatality rate, but a lower R0 than SARS-Cov-2. SARS-1 was spread via respiratory droplet, whereas SARS-Cov-2 was truly airborne (aerosolized), hence Covid’s higher R0. For some time, it was thought that, like SARS1, it was only spread via droplet, but as it turned out, not so. This is why social distancing was useless — although it could theoretically lessen the initial viral load in some cases, I suppose.
SARS1 was more easily contained. Partly because of quick response/quarantine. And it was easier to contain thanks to lower R0. And it mutated itself away at an astonishing rate. Thank goodness. Covid was already wildly out of control by the time the Chinese had to admit to the outbreak, so early containment as with SARS1 was out the window. And we all know the rest of the story.
*See: https://globalhealth.harvard.edu/understanding-predictions-what-is-r-naught/
PS: You do realize any old bum can edit Wikipedia, including you and me and AOC, right? But if you want to go by some Chinese guy’s outdated numbers, fine.