The point of the lock down is to prevent the spread of the virus from happening too fast and overwhelming the healthcare system. It is not to prevent people from ever getting it as that's clearly not possible. You seem to be missing that point in your argument.
If the lockdown is ineffective, there's not point in doing it so whatever.
If the lockdown is effective, you kill the exponential spread. This is good, but if there's no exponential spread, you haven't actually infected many people at all. When you lift the lockdown, you're close to the same level of vulnerability as when you began. For a virus like this, you likely cannot 'eradicate it' by keeping the lockdown ongoing.
There's no middle ground where you slowly build up immunity across the population at a level hospitals can support. We can't turn the economy off and on again until the virus has had burst spread either.
The lockdown makes a lot of sense for 3 reasons: to learn more about the disease, to gather more PPE for doctors, and to reformat critical systems to run with a healthier population. It's not a bad idea. But it's utility is going to run lower while the cost gets higher. We need to address that.
And framing it as lockdown vs. being able to feed your family is a false dichotomy. It seems like a waste to even get into the finer details if this is where you're coming from, but keep calling it hate while ignoring the criticism.
The array of options available to society is not "starve" vs. "waiting in a bread line for hours" vs. "feeding your family" as can be seen by countries that have approached this problem differently.
And lemon zest isn't spicy.
If food prices increase, and people lose jobs, more people will suffer food insecurity. This problem is MUCH worse in poorer countries for obvious reasons.
I skimmed some of your comment history. Your comments aren't as rock solid as you believe, and there are many points either glossing over things or complete ignorance.
> More people will die if the lockdown is lifted, and many of those who would have died anyway will die sooner.
Are you really arguing many would have died anyways? How many? What percent? You're ignoring the reality that in regions with overwhelmed healthcare systems they're having to engage in triage (read: many people are dying who would not have died anyways) since they cannot treat everyone. This isn't just for covid-19, but for people with other treatable conditions.
thanks man. I think you're demonstrating complete ignorance too. For instance, that quote of mine which you posted out of context clearly says the opposite of what you think it says. MORE people will die if the lockdown is lifted, and that those who would have died anyway (if it were not lifted) will die SOONER. Both obvious and uncontroversial.
That aside, triaging is very sad, but has a relatively small effect on total deaths, because the people you triage are the most likely to die, given care. This is very very different from random people dying who would not have died anyways. Hospitals that need to deny patients, which as far as I'm aware is just a single region in Italy with one of the oldest most vulnerable populations in the world, are doing so not because they can't actually take more people in for the most basic low level of care, but because there's basically nothing they can do.
But even if we pretend we could implement a perfect bubble for everyone over 50, they're not especially safe when the lockdown is lifted for them. The virus will still exist, and people over 50 tend to spend time with people over 50 (see: homophily). Once it enters the social network, herd immunity doesn't exist because your local community of old people are both super vulnerable to acquiring the disease and few of them have immunity from past exposure because of the lockdown.
Locking down the country until the virus is eradicated is not a realistic option and its incorrect to think Wuhan has "done" this