For those who don't want to sit through 4 minutes of Tucker talking before you get to the the actual guest (and if you don't think Tucker's preamble that 'fear is hurting people' isn't political, well...) : Jay Bhattacharya, Stanford. He also authored an article in the WSJ recently.
I'm not saying that we shouldn't look at the death rate with some skepticism until we know more. But there's something at the center of his argument that 'what if it's only 1/1000 who die, we've overreacted' that misses the point.
I think it is likely true that the extent of people exposed, infected and asymptomatic is higher than we'll ever know, given the paucity of testing. The fact that the first evidence of Covid infections and deaths in California were in the Vacaville-Sacramento corridor, and not SF, LA or SD, and from people with no association of foreign travel suggests community spreading. It was, and likely has been, very widespread. That certainly means that the death rate is lower than initially thought, certainly lower than some of the dire estimates in the early days.
Right now, the deaths per capita in the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Italy, UK and France already eclipse the ~0.01% per capita deaths from the common flu. If you assume everyone got infected in those countries, the death rate of 0.02 - 0.04% is higher than the flu, happened in a short time, and has proved to be disastrous for some areas in that resources were totally overwhelmed.
But not everyone has been exposed to it, and we ensured that (and the low death rate) by cratering the world economy and telling everyone to stay home. Also, unlike the flu, this is more contagious, widespread, and deadly (even Bhattacharya agreed with that) and there's no vaccine.