> So Ebola virus is not as deadly as COVID because fewer people have died from it?

Yes? That's the definition, no?

Cows are deadlier than sharks, cars are deadlier than planes, even though you're more likely to survive a cow attack or a car crash?

Which is deadlier, being shot in the head with a .50 cal, or catching the flu?

The former is much deadlier - it's basically guaranteed death - but the latter is so much more frequent that it claims more lives even though the vast majority of people survive it. Usually "deadlier" refers to the chances a given event will kill you if it happens, not normalized for the frequency of those events.

The flu most certainly claims more lives, but I doubt most people would agree with the sentence, "being shot in the head is less deadly than the flu."

But now you're comparing individual outcomes to population outcomes.

Yes, getting shot in the head is deadlier than (catching) the spanish flu.

But the Spanish flu was deadlier than firearms/WW1.

That's often the limit of analogies.

Sorry I think you’re confusing “deadlier” with “more death,” deadliness is a measure of likelihood of dying when exposed to the situation. Something can be much less deadly yet more people are exposed to the situation and it causes more death. Ebola is undoubtedly more deadly than covid. But it’s much less virulent, partially because it is so deadly. There’s no super spreading symptom free stuff going on with Ebola. Just death.

>Yes? That's the definition, no?

No, it pretty much always refers to the case fatality rate.

Yes, MERS killed less people but had R0 estimates from 2 to 5 based on the Saudi and South Korea infections. MERS killed 936 people with a CFR of 36%. The US has an observed-CFR of 1.1% due to COVID-19 (close to Canada with more stringent measures), and Peru, the highest, at 4.9%.

In more visceral terms, if the doctor says you either have MERS or SARS-CoV-2. What is your first thought, question? Which is more deadlier?