Oh, I was meaning let's assume there's a million people in New England, not the earth. Now that I google it, it says there's about 15 million. So there should still be quite a few people around there even if 99% died.
As Valpo says, worldwide, there would hypothetically be something like 70 million people left alive if 99% died. If you were to spread them out, then humanity might be in trouble, but if you take population density into account, it's likely that most of the survivors would be close enough together to rebuild eventually. It's been theorized (and I don't know enough about it to question how valid the theory is) that around 50,000 years ago, a supervolcano eruption reduced the human population to 1,000-10,000 breeding pairs (so 2,000 to 20,000 people), and we recovered ok from that. So, that's why I say that only killing 99% of us off still makes for a pretty lousy extinction event. That's still about the number of people in pre-plague Europe or post plague China, and considerably more than what existed in north america at any point before colonization.
As I said, you do need to suspend disbelief to go with 99% of people dying that quickly, but that said, if it took a realistically long time for that many to die, then you'd still find yourself in a much better position as one of the people who hadn't then you do at the start of the current game.