[faizshah]

The euphemism of “Life expectancy of the whole population” is disguising that you’re saying 200k-1.7 million deaths is worth you not having to stay home for 4 months. This isn’t even factoring in the millions who will suffer severe cases needing hospitalization and suffering permanent lung damage but won’t die.

Secondly, the article you linked has several arguments against your own conclusion. For example, that many will suffer permanent lung damage, a significant multiple of the number of people who will die will be seriously ill and need hospitalization, and that this cost-benefit analysis overvalues the lives of the young over the old.

[weggooi]

There are alternatives to locking the whole population down: For example the Imperial College study predicts less deaths if only the 70+ population is locked down.

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/s...

Also look at page 10: If you lockdown for only 5 months, the virus just comes back and still kills 1 in 500 people.

If you want to minimize the deaths, the study suggests that you need 400+ days of lockdowns over a 2 year period.