[michaelmrose]

Can you show me how you calculated the 3 trillion dollar cost? Are you for example counting loans to businesses as if none will be paid back? Are we talking about the economic impact or direct costs or both?

To be clear the UK has 29 million workers who make an average of 28k pounds. If 60% of them are off work and can't work from home paying 80% of that wage to 60% of them would appear to cost about 32 billion pounds per month.

The GDP in 2019 was 2.21T pounds. If we had to pay 80% of 60% of the workforce for 6 months this would cost 195B pounds or 9% of the GDP aprox.

This would be about 400k per life saved which is still a lot of money but honestly would you rather the rich have bigger mansions or your fellow vulnerable citizens be alive?

It is deceptive to claim that the only people dying are 80 year olds. Here is a local that just died in my state aged 42.

https://komonews.com/news/coronavirus/breast-cancer-survivor...

[deodorel]

She had an pre-existing condition: compromised immunity after a stage 4 cancer.

[michaelmrose]

Are you ok with killing all such people? These people are all around you in your community. They don't wear a badge to let you know they are vulnerable?

[AntonStratiev]

What does a pound or a dollar even represent anymore? They are being printed and given out with little consideration to the impact.

I think we are going to see hyperinflation at some point, particularly if this is dragged on for the 18 months necessary for a vaccine.

Why would I go in to work and stack shelves when the Government will just give me money to sit at home? Why would I even go into the hospital to operate a Ventilator?

The point is that the UK (and many other countries) are essentially 100% oriented around COVID-19, to the extent that the entire resources of the country and its people are dedicated or impacted by it.

Lets reiterate the death rates, from Imperial College's own report:

0-9: 1 in 50,000

10-19: 1 in 16,667

20-29: 1 in 3,333

30-39: 1 in 1,250

40-49: 1 in 667

50-59: 1 in 167

60-69: 1 in 45

70-79: 1 in 20

80+: 1 in 11

The above is slightly less than the risk of death from any cause.

[mhotchen]

Why does anyone do anything at all? Mate, if everyone sat on their arses all day we wouldn't have been the species that we are.

> The above is slightly less than the risk of death from any cause.

So let's slightly less than double the death rate for anyone that catches this _highly_ contagious disease? Get real mate, come on.

[michaelmrose]

People might not go in to stack shelves but they will go in to save their fellow citizens lives. 1 in 3333 20 somethings and 1 in 1250 30 somethings is still a fuck ton of people. This is basically the base of your economy.

[ClumsyPilot]

Because all of your numbers are wrong and assume that the person gets the best intensive care possible. In a pandemic like Italy, the healthcare system is overwhelmed and you cant get care an ventilator. Then death rates go up 20x, and yound people start dying too.

You would do those things because collective survival of organised civilisation depends on it