Obviously the accuracy of stats reported and when/where the zenith of cases will appear can affect such a comparison, but over the past few days, the reported data doesn't suggest there is some mass number of deaths in India (yet) relative to the US.
US Population: 23.91% of India
US Deaths, Past 3 Days: 25.57% of India
US Cases, Past 3 Days: 14.49% of India
It's all about the positivity rates
India: 20.3% and rapidly rising
USA: 6.2% and steadily rising
Source: ourworldindata
The first wave in India seems to have largely avoided the urban middle class, because they could afford to lockdown, but the slum-dwellers couldn't. That gave the impression in India's political elite and mainstream media that India as a whole went off lightly. But this wave shattered that illusion. There's no way that India's real death toll is less than a million by now. I can't imagine what happened in rural areas that lacked any modern infrastructure.
Honestly, most people in rural areas
in India* probably got off better than those in urban areas. People in rural areas are generally more active, less obese, and healthier than those in urban areas, even if they're somewhat poorer in material terms.
As for those people who got to critical condition though in rural areas (prob 2% definitely way lower than the percentage in America), they definitely had a lower rate of survival, though. For the elderly especially its incredibly horrid what's happening.
I think that actually only reason we hear about this wave is probably because it's actually affecting the urban middle class who are relatively unhealthy and have a much higher death rate compared to both the rural areas and the upper-class areas. If something happened in the rural areas there sadly wouldn't be much concern. It'd sweep through kill a few million people (which while tragic is a drop in the bucket) and nobody would notice otherwise.
I could be wrong though.
