The most comprehensive analysis of the disease puts the average age of death from COVID at about ~80 years. Almost all of victims had a pre-existing condition. Fully choking the economy now means that we are much more likely to choke the supply chains and the healthcare system since we are stopping even healthy, younger people who are usually the main contributors to economic output. Without that output, it will only get harder to help those most vulnerable to the disease.
So the argument that stopping the economy now to help it later, eventually, even if we don't know how long we will need to keep it shut doesn't make any sense imo. We are jeopardizing our future ability to fight against the disease, big time
That's a ridiculous false choice fallacy. First of all, the 5% doesn't make sense and is demonstrably false. You are cherry picking the data that fits you and assuming everyone infected got tested. Also, if you go by your logic, why do you think killing 5% of the population better than killing even more people by completely wrecking the supply chains that allow us to treat enough people?
Also, you've literally ignored all of my argument that addressed what would be better and why it would be better. You also shifted back to a rhetorical question to avoid talking about whatever you said about dead people in the streets. It's absurd to move the goalposts like this.
But even if you are clearly being dishonest here, I'll say it again. The best option would be to not lock down the vast majority of the population because it will only mean less resources to help the sick and fight against the disease itself. It will also only lead to a breaking point where people will simply not be able to afford to stay on lockdown no matter how bad it gets. That will make the whole thing much more deadly because people will simply not follow any measure if they are hungry or completely broke.
You’re suggesting letting the virus spread, uncontrolled. That means a million dead in the US, assuming everyone had access to good care. Of course, not everyone has access to good care on the best of days in the US. Once the healthcare system is overloaded few will get good care and the mortality rate from Coronavirus and everything else, for everyone will be much higher. And, as people die in the streets, the economy will shut down anyway.
So your plan is to essentially let this spread unchecked to save the economy. Unfortunately, that’s not how this will play out. That’s how you collapse a medical system and see mortality rates above 5%, and almost certainly wreck the economy anyway. There’s a reason literally no country has done that. Thank science you’re not in charge of anything.
There isn’t some magical good option or plan here. It’s a choice between terrible, terrible options, and you’re sticking your head in the sand and ignoring that.
So the argument that stopping the economy now to help it later, eventually, even if we don't know how long we will need to keep it shut doesn't make any sense imo. We are jeopardizing our future ability to fight against the disease, big time