|
Well, yes. More, but shorter. That's why people are calling it a "gamble". According to the article, ICU capacity is currently at a quarter. They could probably "afford" a higher rate, and be done with it faster. Insisting on minimizing that number at all costs is insane. First, only if you could contain it or a vaccine becomes available, would you be actually mitigating it, else you're just shifting around a set amount of deaths over a larger timespan. Second, if you apply that logic consistently across every aspect of life, you'd have to ban cars too, they're far too dangerous and deadly. And smoking. And drinking. And the list just goes on. There are some who'd say yes to all three, but... oh boy, you must be fun at parties. Look at the numbers in the US. No matter how it develops or has developed (we don't know the true infection ratio of the population, which is undoubtedly higher), there's no more containing it on a global scale. Our globalized and, at least for the privileged, largely open world with open borders would cease to exist, for there would be countries that insist on containing it, thus quarantining anyone entering, and therefore killing off all non-essential travel, like e.g. tourism. So, to keep that, you need to be immune... or a vaccine has to exist. But, it's also a gamble to be counting on a vaccine. |
This is incorrect. You're reducing the number of deaths. Think of it like this: imagine 2% of people need ICU care. 100% of those that don't get ICU care die. 100% of those that do get ICU care live. ICU care takes a week. You can have everyone need ICU care all at once: everyone beyond the number of ICU beds will die, so 2% of the population dies. Or you can spread it out so that the number of people needing care at once is below the number of ICU beds, and no one dies.
And since your second point depends on your (flawed) first, it's invalid too.