He is suggesting the amount of inactive accounts will go up 2 or 3 or 5 fold.
Which probably won't be the case. This could happen of course, but I wouldn't say its likely. The fact that hackers were brought into the conclusion also seems to be a huge jump. Unless, the hackers have information on you, then I would argue that a active person is far more susceptible to hacks because of social engineering, and various other attacks. There's a big misconception that there's a huge load of elite hackers out there that can work on practically no information, and hack users accounts. However, this isn't the case as I would argue most "hackers" are script kiddies, and the other hackers would likely attack the platform, and not individual users unless they were high level targets. For example, such as Satoshi's account or email, thus the account here has been deactivated. If we were to expect a large amount of accounts under attack, then it would likely be through a database leak, rather than individual attacks. Individual attacks would take far too long, and might even be impossible.
By the way, theres still a lot of fuzz around how the death rate is being calculated in different countries, and how its evolution is not necessarily due to clinical reasons, but rather statistical ones. For example, Germany seems to consider amongst the deceased only those where the Coronavirus was the primal cause of death. Other countries are considering those that, having died for any reason, had the Coronavirus.
Additionally, the more tests that are extended over to mild symptomatic cases, the less the death rate ratio. Spain is currently focused on testing those with clear symptoms, but not so much on those with mild symptoms, thus the death rate is higher, and will decrease as the test is extended on to the milder cases at some point.
This has been something that I've questioned, and many others have. For example, people who are infected with the disease, but are dying from cancer are included in their statistics. However, it isn't clear what actually killed them, and they're treating it as a contribution to other diseases because of it putting more strain on the immune system, however in actuality it may have not been a contributing factor at all. The death rate might well be blown up due to these reasons, because it doesn't seem like they're waiting for a autopsy to confirm their conclusions as it seems that the statistics are up dated as soon as someone is positive, and then later died. I'm wondering whether the statistics upon review after this settles down will be greatly misrepresented.