[pitdicker]

If a CC2 building collapses, the expectation is that in only about 3% of the cases this leads to someone dying. I don't know the complete reasoning, but can imagine some factors of why this number is far below 100%: a building is not always in use, there are often warning signs with time to escape, and collapse can be localized (not the whole building).

[sd9]

Makes sense, so this is confounded by the number of people in the building.

30% for a CC3 seemed high to me initially (hence wondering if 0.3 really meant 0.3%). But since it actually means "in 30% of structural failures in CC3 buildings (e.g. a stadium), at least one person dies", it make much more sense because there are probably lots of people in the stadium.

[Snow_Falls]

I agree, it would likely have extremely diminishing returns in terms of lives saved to have more stringent safety requirements. Needs to be a balance after all.