It is terrifying how fast reasonable people have jumped on board with China-level lockdown policies that will decimate life-as-we-know-it after they end.
I've been reading every whitepaper and journal publication I can find on this disease.
The picture that I'm seeing is that this disease is both more infectious (higher R0) and less deadly than previously thought.
In light of those facts I am fairly convinced the lockdowns and resulting economic impacts will be worse than just isolating the most vulnerable and letting the rest of the population go about their business.
The fatality rate so far only applies as long as the health care system isn't overwhelmed though. Plenty of non-elderly are affected severely enough to need ICU care, and they will start showing up as fatalities once there aren't any free spots any more. Washington State is almost at this point and is preparing triaging procedures.
I'm astonished how many people think that they know better how to respond than the professional epidemiologists. If anything the response actually enacted is tempered from what they recommend by the politicians.
Being one of those reasonable people who has not fallen for the complete lockdown argument, I feel that the ball is rolling and no argument can reduce the measures right now.
In Denmark there are 42 people requiring ICU care and 13 deaths. Just two years ago more than 1.600 died due to the common flu, but that hardly got any coverage nor any of the counter-measures being employed right now.
If I should find some positive in this over-response, that would be the benefit for the environment due to less pollution.
If we could reduce emissions to the current level, the climate would be so much better for it.
I mostly agree with your underlying assumptions but I'm still advocating for a different course of action.
The problem with this disease is that while many people don't die, they require intensive care. As we can see in Italy currently this will overwhelm hospitals at some point (and Italy has already put drastic measures into place). At that point it becomes a huge problem for society: a lot of people are dying and the health system doesn't work anymore. People die because of appendicitis etc.
Did you read the Imperial College paper that starts the whole thing? That paper acknowledges multiple different strategy (with full lockdown being one of them) and details what the long term strategy could be.
Whether we catch it is not the issue, the vast majority of us will. It's whether when you do and have complications, you can go to the hospital or die waiting for an ambulance that never comes because the system is overwhelmed.
I've been reading every whitepaper and journal publication I can find on this disease.
The picture that I'm seeing is that this disease is both more infectious (higher R0) and less deadly than previously thought.
In light of those facts I am fairly convinced the lockdowns and resulting economic impacts will be worse than just isolating the most vulnerable and letting the rest of the population go about their business.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.02.12.20022434v... (Suggests the R0 is much higher and IFR much lower than reported)
https://www.epicentro.iss.it/coronavirus/bollettino/Report-C... (shows that the people dying are very old and very sick already. Also given the fact that part of the population is so impacted strongly suggests the disease is much more widespread)
Also, all of the celebrities, politicians and athletes that are testing positive are proof, in my opinion, of how wide this has gone.