We are talking about a status quo scenario, in which CO2 emissions are continuing unabated along current levels or falling only very slowly. This will result in an increase of average global temperatures of +3°C [0]. It will literally make uninhabitable due to flooding or heat a non-insignificant share of currently settled land area around the world.

If you want to really kill your appetite, google "wet bulb temperature" and think about the (very real) possibility, that a mega-city in pakistan or india could experience a wet bulb temperature of >35°C for several hours sometimes this century, which will probably kill most people who don't have access to air conditioning (which is most of them), while the excessive use of air conditioning will further increase the temperature in this city during the event.

If we are talking about +3°C scenarios, it is really for you to argue why excess deaths shouldn't be assumed to show compounding growth.

> Have you considered mitigating factors to prevent deaths?

I've mentioned the possibility of adaption several times in this thread. But I personally severely doubt that a global society that can't get it's act together to limit CO2 emissions will be able to mobilize adequate economic and political resources to make a dent in the excess deaths resulting from a +3°C scenario. It's the same basic problem: we would need to mobilize considerable public resources, financed mostly by rich people and with significant impact on the lifestyle of the middle class to benefit society at large. Either we manage to achieve this for both emission reduction and adaption, or we will loose at both.

[0] https://www.ngfs.net/ngfs-scenarios-portal/explore