[nate_meurer]

You're using ambiguous language, and you didn't at all refute the parent's argument.

If sars-cov-2 actually turns out to have overall IFR of around a quarter of a percent, then it most certainly is comparable to seasonal flu. I personally think that's unlikely, as most reputable estimates have continued to converge on the 0.5-1% range. But even that is "comparable" in the true sense of the word, in that reasonable and fruitful comparisons can be made between the two. Which is exactly what epidemiologists do for a living.

I rather think it's your comparison that's delusional. Two-thirds of of the people killed by malaria are children. Millions more children are afflicted with symptoms severe enough to lead to long-term health problems. Malaria literally robs countries of their future. And malaria's transmission is a much harder problem to solve, because we're fighting a resilient, ubiquitous, nearly invisible vector that can spread the disease miles from the nearest infected person.

To be sure sars-cov-2 is worser and scarier than seasonal flu in every way, but the hysteria isn't helpful.

You didn't even bother to try to refute the parent's assertion that more limited but better targeted restriction might work just as well with less economic damage. This is an area of active, legitimate debate.

[tsimionescu]

The IFR for Covid-19 is still not known, but just based on deaths, it is obviously either much more virulent or much more deadly than a seasonal flu. There is no way to look at ~127k deaths in the US for half a year, with no sign of slowing down in summer, and say that it is similar to the flu (which killed ~34k people last year in the US).

The comparison to malaria is also interesting. You're absolutely right that the infection vector is completely different in almost all characteristics. The difference between a disease killing mostly children and a disease killing mostly old people is important, but I don't think "robbing a country of its future" is a meaningful way to look at it. For example, there are no demographic risks from malaria, like your metaphor would seem to imply. The majority of the economic impact is coming either from households having to pay for the care of their sick family, or from lost work due to the sickness. The long-term impairments that malaria may leave children with are also a factor.

Of these, the first and possibly the third apply to COVID-19 as well, except that the costs for COVID-19 care are much higher, and with the important caveat that we don't know the long-term impacts of COVID-19 (though it is very likely not to affect children significantly, fortunately).

And while malaria can be eradicated (with great effort and time), as has been done in the southern US and southern Europe at least, it remains much more likely that COVID-19 will remain an endemic burden that we will just live and die with. I don't think we have any examples of successfully eliminating a human-to-human transmitted respiratory disease, unless we get lucky with a vaccine. It may well end up as a new tuberculosis.

And the assertion that limited restrictions could work as well as lockdowns is an extraordinary claim without any form of evidence. The only countries that successfully stopped the disease used some combination of timely lockdowns, travel restrictions, ubiquitous mask wearing, large scale testing, and excellent universal healthcare. Limited protections for the elderly have not been shown to work anywhere in the world, so why bother discussing them?

Note: in the spirit of nitpicking about my use of "not comparable" when I meant "much worse than", I should also point out that SARS-CoV-2 is a virus, so it is literally not comparable to the Flu, which is a disease. You can compare SARS-CoV-2 with (one of) the Influenza virus(es), or compare COVID-19 with the Flu/Influenza.

[nate_meurer]

> And the assertion that limited restrictions could work as well as lockdowns is an extraordinary claim without any form of evidence.

Japan, for example, has so far found success with very limited restrictions. There are other examples.

> The only countries that successfully stopped the disease used some combination of timely lockdowns, travel restrictions, ubiquitous mask wearing, large scale testing, and excellent universal healthcare.

This completely contradicts your previous sentence. Every intervention that you listed except for "lockdown" is... not a lockdown, and therefore by definition an alternative to a lockdown. Governments at all levels around the world are exploring alternatives, which will largely be judged to "work as well as lockdowns" if they can keep healthcare systems from being overwhelmed while significantly avoiding the economic devastation caused by the stricter interventions.

> Limited protections for the elderly have not been shown to work anywhere in the world, so why bother discussing them?

That's an extremely unhelpful way to approach any complicated subject, especially one of such enormous importance. Thankfully, most healthcare professionals don't indulge is such nonsense, and have in many places been successful in keeping infections out of care homes. As of this weekend, there are still nursing homes in the USA reporting zero deaths from COVID, and many others that have kept infections to a level similar to that of other respiratory diseases.

[tsimionescu]

I didn't contradict myself, I was referring to 'limited restrictions for the elderly', the parent commenter's recommendation. The parent commenter was also explicitly against widespread mask wearing, and for allowing the disease to spread during summer. Japan has extremely widespread mask wearing, and while lockdown orders were not enforced, there were recommendations for the populace to work from home and avoid going out for the night which were respected on a wide scale, paired with travel restrictions both internally and internationally, and school closure in the cirtical period at the beginning of spring.

Related to targeted measures for the elderly and their success, of course care homes should take all precautions, who would oppose that?? I am saying that it can't be considered enough, and we have seen that it is not enough, for example in Sweden. The fact that there exist care homes in the US that have had few or no COVID-19 deaths is proof of nothing, except of a job well done by those people, and of good luck.

But the elderly don't live only in care homes, and it is not only the elderly who are getting sick and dying. And many more care homes have done a terrible job in keeping their wards safe, becoming hot beds of infection themselves.

> > Limited protections for the elderly have not been shown to work anywhere in the world, so why bother discussing them?

> That's an extremely unhelpful way to approach any complicated subject, especially one of such enormous importance. Thankfully, most healthcare professionals don't indulge is such nonsense

Limited restrictions <for the elderly> as the only measure taken against COVID-19 have not worked anywhere in the world, are against almost all medical professionals' recommendations, and aren't even worth discussing. It has been tried by madmen, and it leads to tragedy. This is what the parent was proposing, and this is what I am combating.

Less-than-lockdown restrictions for the entire populace can work, if they are respected on a wide scale. Unfortunately, most of the people who are against lockdowns are also against any such restrictions, imagining instead that they can shift all of the burden on the elderly and sick. Not only is that a heinous attitude, it has also been shown not to work.