That analysis does not take into account decreases in fatalities from other causes (flu, for example). Also, CDC is still stuck on roughly 83 million reported plus unreported cases. So...
I’d guess 300k excess deaths from 90 million infections = 99.67%. And, CDC is notoriously pretty low on things like actual fatalities until well after a year of occurrence.
Plus from what I’m seeing around me, there are quite a few people left with long term difficulties. That’s a problem in and of itself. Plus, if one recovered from COVID well enough to go home, and 7 months later the damage from COVID contributes to their fatality, despite no COVID disease present, what’s on the DC? Probably not COVID.
Bottom line is that there’s likely at least a 10% chance that COVID would put me, a reasonably healthy person in their mid-60’s, in a bad way for at least months, and early on I could unwittingly pass it on to someone close to me and more vulnerable. So, all the talk about overall survivability becomes rather irrelevant to my own actions and precautions.
Two obvious answers to that: 1) flu decreases were put into the COVID bucket. 2) the rise in lockdown-related deaths far exceeds any flu decreases. Now you'll probably argue that flu deaths weren't put into the COVID bucket, but that's not correct. Most respiratory victims were presumed COVID and untested. There are lots of false positives.