Weird Argument Suggesting That It Would Be Good News If Wuhan Virus Infection Rate Were Bigger Than We Think

   I keep running into this weird argument that seems to go like this: the infection rate might be a lot higher than we think it is--which would be good news because it would mean that COVID-19 is a lot less deadly than we think.
   But that's not right, is it? If it's half as deadly but twice as infectious...uh...assume, for the sake of the argument, that the amount of non-fatal misery would be the same in both cases, I guess...still the same number of deaths... So it's a wash, right? Though I guess half as deadly / twice as infectious would mean more people acquiring immunity...maybe that's what they mean...
   It's amazing how much not an epidemiologist I am.