So now you look like you're doing a malevolent con job. Congratulations, you've made yourself look actively evil.
How many people are dead right now?
If you aren't willing to look at the costs and benefits of what you're proposing you'll only end up with a far higher bodycount and perverse pride in what you've achieved. Why are Corona deaths sadder than any other death? What, except for the media focus and being in the public eye at this very moment, makes it worse to die from this than cancer, obesity, murder or anything else?
Please go find your own estimates of the costs and benefits, to governments and individuals, and think whether this is good long term. Everything that goes into this is going to come out of something else later. People won't be able to afford to eat well, they won't be able to afford medical treatment, they won't be able to afford this, that or the other. Unemployment and financial stress cause lots of health problems that are going to effect a lot of people long term and government spending will need to be cut in a lot of fields to cover the debt. This isn't just some trade off of video games and holidays to save grandparents' lives here, this
will come at real cost to real people, including their lives.
Why are you only pulling shit from more than a month ago?
These keep coming out, I already showed you the Iceland and Massachusetts study as well.
Here's yet another for six days ago that gives as much as 50 times reported cases.
I still think that as far as our society spends money 2 500 000 $ (or 5 000 000 $ or 10 000 000 $) to save one life is still above average of how we spend money so I see no problem with that.
If you have evidence that costs of lockdowns, compared to cost of no lockdowns are actually higher then provide sources.
So far estimates provided by "lockdowns should be ended" people are in my opinion supporting continuation of lockdowns.
Those figures I showed were just for current known government spending, there are going to be direct and indirect deaths resulting from the lockdown as well you can compare directly that won't be known for years. If someone loses their job or business and can't afford medical treatment next year that can be counted directly against this, for example. Then personal spending government spending will need to be cut in a whole range of fields to pay the debt and that'll cut into quality of life years somewhere and add up to megadeaths. The sums could get worse if the lockdown is extended much longer.
To look at the lockdown costs I think the fairest thing is probably to compare the Netherlands or Sweden to their neighbors once the numbers are in, but naturally if everyone near you decides to jump off a cliff to a recession there's nothing you can do to avoid having one of your own and needing to spend money to fix the problems that causes.
For a current source one pro lockdown study I've been shown actually claims there's a benefit of +5 Trillion to the US economy of the lock down by pricing each death at 10 million dollars and thinks social distancing would save around a million lives. They give the lockdown cost to GDP as ~14 Trillion and the loss without a lockdown as ~6.5 Trillion. It also demonstrates the problem we're having from no-one really wanting to discuss quality of life years vs number of lives. If a virus is mostly hitting the elderly with health problems then the number of quality years lost is significantly lower than the base death toll would suggest and pricing that at the $10 million benchmark is just silly. You haven't 'saved' someone at that age the same way you could a ten year old who'd been hit by a car, you buy them another few months or if you're lucky years of decent living before something else gets them. You also need to seriously consider whether it's pointlessly cruel or not to prolong their lives with an end of life month long hospital stay in ICU or let them go with morphine. (There's even an argument the 'flatten the curve' focus on providing ICU places for them is basically pointless anyway,
since I keep seeing reports that 85%+ of people who get put on ventilators die anyway.)
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3561934
Using a $10 million value of reduced mortality risk (VSL) for the lives saved, the benefits of social distancing are $12.4 trillion. The cost of social distancing is the difference in present value terms of the GDP losses without ($6.49 trillion) and with ($13.7 trillion) the policy, which is $7.21 trillion. The main result is in the bottom row: under our benchmark assumptions, social distancing generates net benefits of about $5.16 trillion
It is also possible that we are underreacting to flu. Note that we are undercounting both infections and deaths. If you have decent sources discussing real infection fatality rate then please link it. And yes, case fatality rate is badly affected by undertesting or testing heavily ill people so statistics like 10% fatality rate over population are clearly a nonsense.
So it appears to be 3 to 4 times deadlier than flu, even with an extreme reaction. Though given uncertainties it may be between "less deadly than flu (after heavy reaction) to ten times deadlier than flu (even after reaction)".
I wouldn't mind a few changes to how we deal with sickness in general, especially making masks socially acceptable in western countries and making sick leave more of a public duty than a luxury, but talking about Corona specifically there are lots of testing studies out there. I can keep linking studies of tests of the public finding far more infected than predicted, but the only way I can see to prove deaths aren't being vastly under reported is to look at all causes mortality.
This is another recent study testing the public.
These prevalence estimates represent a range between 48,000 and 81,000 people infected in Santa Clara County by early April, 50-85-fold more than the number of confirmed cases. Conclusions The population prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in Santa Clara County implies that the infection is much more widespread than indicated by the number of confirmed cases. Population prevalence estimates can now be used to calibrate epidemic and mortality projections.
In the UK all causes mortality stats that exclude corona deaths have stayed stable at around 11,000 a week until this last week where we spike up to 16,000 which is
probably Corona or people who couldn't get treatment because of Corona and should probably add into the figure. If we add ~5,000 people to the total of 18,000 it doesn't move the meter much if the actual infection spread could be 10 times the reported figure or several times that.
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/weekly-all-cause-mortality-surveillance-2019-to-2020
Overall it just seems like the whole thing will be proven counter productive. Everyone got infected anyway, lots of people will suffer horribly to pay for it and the ICU treatment we were banking everything on either didn't work or was somehow actively counterproductive.
