The conclusion seems to be that they don't know why that is. Which is not very helpful but much better than assuming a reason and making it a big headline, which so often occurs in the media.
Pretty sure there will be multiple factors in play - not least that a lot of the people in vulnerable age groups have learned to socially distance while the youngsters take less care, are catching it more, yet far less likely to die. That has to impact the death rate significantly.
Its particularly telling how (in America, according to the article) the young cases rose, then the older cases and the deaths followed - because the youngsters were then infecting their older family members.
What a terrible burden to bear - knowing that you infected your granny, who then died.
I remember reading (somewhere) that there is a theory to (partially) explain why the death rate in India and Brazil do not compare with The US and the UK. The former have a much younger population, while the privileged West have a much older pop, with a lot more lingering ill health, polypharmery and so on. Of course, there is a lot less birth/death documentation and age tracking in Brazil and India, so precise numbers are simply unfeasible.
Plus, the whole question about how many are asymptomatic and passing it on completely unaware is a question that will never be answered.
but i agree with you, it is refreshing to read something that isn’t shouting in black and white sensationalist terms.