And to put a finer point on it:
We lost 3.5% of the population to WWII. They estimate an ugly level of 6% for this outbreak worst case.
Which is worse? Losing 6% of the population, yet the world economy continues, more or less with a bit of a hiccup, allowing the survivors to continue to thrive and maintain a solid economy and good quality of life.
Or
Doing everything possible to prevent every last death, at the expense of society as we know it? What's the use saving a relative handful* of humans that will be dead within a decade or two anyway if those that are left are worse off in the long term via a Great Depression 2.0? Will our kids barely scraping by MAYBE recovering by the 3rd decade after suffering the entire way, come out of this OK? will they have to rally around WWIII to jump start the economy? I dont know. What I do know is this smacks of the socialist/communist type groupthink that is save every last soul you can, even if it means every last one of us is miserable because of the policy. Heaven forbid somebody dies to allow someone else to live a blessed life... Gee, that sounds like a familiar story. I wonder where I might have heard it before? I'm sure if I wait a couple more weeks my pastor might remind me of that story.
*I have multiple factors that label me as high risk for this virus. So I'm coming at this as somebody that if I caught it I'm screwed at best with reduced lung capacity, Dead at worst. I'm not one of those that have no skin in the game and are most likely to escape without a scratch like some.
If they let it run it will be much higher than 6%. Look at Italy,with lock down still running right at 8%,and of those more than half are below 50(deaths and in hospital cases).
Take away social distancing and it would be closer to my worst case.