Again, you are making assumptions. You simply don't understand that someone with advanced age with 3 or 4 comorbidities can shake off the infection without problems, while a person with no comorbidities and 30-40 years younger can be at higher risk and have severe problems. Or why healthy elderly can shake it off while deficient, malnourished, starved, dehydrated ones in care homes can start dropping like flies when infected. You don't understand that data you rely on is filled with so many confounders that this is not even funny. I already explained both the confounders of aging and your flawed reliance on comorbidity data in previous posts. This is a perfect example of garbage-in, garbage-out, but you simply cannot see this. I do not negate the fact that risk amplifies with age, but not to a significant or impactful extent like you and others are claiming, what I'm saying is that age is not a causal factor when it comes to disease susceptibility and risk for severe outcomes or death. And it is neither a major risk factor, despite what data is showing you. It is all about the health status of the individual and how well his immune system functions. This, in return, is driven by nutrition, which drives not only immune function but our entire biochemistry. The only reason why you see a significant risk increase with age in available data is due to confounders, which you are either ignoring or are completely unaware of. If you look and compare both healthy vs. unhealthy populations, you will see a significant risk correlation with age on one side, but you won't see it either at all or to the same and substantial degree on the other.