[raphlinus]

I suppose it makes sense to have an explicit discussion of this trolley-style problem. Given an choice between $9.6 trillion damage to the economy and the deaths of a million mostly elderly people, which would you choose? An economist following the most recent US figure cited on the "Value of life" Wikipedia page [1] would say this is break even. A particularly selfish young person would say it's a good deal. I personally would not take it, but that might just be my own personal biases.

As with such trolley problems, real life is rarely so clear-cut. If done intelligently, massive loss of life can be prevented, and the economy can find smart ways to adapt.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_of_life

[solidasparagus]

Agreed. And the frustration is that we are seeing tons of government action to prevent loss of life, but the effort to protect against the economic damage is basically non-existant. Couple a lockdown with something like a moratorium on rent collection and a widespread effort to help feed everyone and it would feel much less one-sided.