[king_magic]

The problem with your line of thinking is you're failing to consider what would have happened if society did not shut down.

Even with a conservative 1.6% death rate, if only a million people in your county contracted COVID, you could still expect 16,000 people to die.

That kind of death rate would tank the economy far worse than a temporary shutdown.

[briHass]

1.6% death rate is not conservative or based in reality. The CDC's best estimate for the IFR, currently, is 0.65% (almost 3x less.) As a population average, even 0.65% doesn't paint an accurate picture. We know deaths are disproportionally in the elderly and those with serious pre-existing conditions.

A better plan would be to do what was possible to protect at-risk populations, but not make the Faustian bargain we did to destroy the economy.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scena...

[logicchains]

>That kind of death rate would tank the economy far worse than a temporary shutdown.

That's completely false. Most of those deaths would be people who aren't working anyway (retirees). The 1918 flu killed way more people, but the economic impact was far less, because there were no lockdowns. Sweden had almost 6000 deaths, but its economy is still doing way better than most countries in Europe (France, Italy, England..).

[king_magic]

No, it's absolutely not false at all. You seriously don't think that retirees contribute to the economy? Beyond that, a large portion of those deaths would be retirees, but a significant portion would be younger people (20s-60s). As more people get sick, more people stop going to work. Stop going out. The downwind effect is massive.