Where is the cutoff between "way too many deaths" and not too many deaths? I don't mean to be glib, but it is an important question that needs to be weighed against destroying all of our economic institutions.

Strawman. Weigh it against suspension of economic institutions, new rules to mitigate the damage, and new institutions that operate on more rational basis.

> that needs to be weighed against destroying all of our economic institutions.

No it doesn't. Like the statement alone doesn't even have any credence, let alone following through with it.

Incredibly daft.

Economic institutions sustain people's lives. Declining productivity translates to loss in life expectancy.

If everything else remains unchanged. Which it isn't. Changes are happening every day.

And nobody plans to stay in this mode forever. Medicine is making tremendous progress at an astonishing rate. They just need time.

Stay patient.

There are viral infections for which vaccines were never successfully developed, despite over a decade of research and trials. There is no guarantee a vaccine will be developed for SARS-CoV-2 in anything approaching a timely manner. People need to weigh the costs and risks of a near total freeze on economic activity against those of letting the virus run its course until herd immunity develops.

There are 115 trials underway. There are 100,000 very smart investigators working day and night. There has already been tremendous progress.

My niece works at a lab developing a cheap test. Two of their researchers have already died of this virus (they went to work despite the risks). Don't make fools of them, by falling into despair and negativity.

A vaccine for HIV was never found.

I hope they succeed in creating a vaccine for COVID19, but resting the lifting of a highly destructive mass-lockdown of healthy people on a hope, is reckless.

Contingency plans need to be created; a definite end date for the lockdowns, irrespective of whether a vaccine exists.

The ability to produce food or manufacturer essential items doesn't suddenly disappear. If you think money flow suddenly makes things disappear remove your brain worm.

You know what can disappear, become depleted, or stretched to thin? Trained medical personal. And money flow can't replenish that resource.

First of all, please don't be uncivil. Getting upset and insulting people is no way to discuss a complex issue.

As for your post; that ability gradually disappears, just as it gradually builds up when the economy is functioning properly.

Capital depreciates. A washing machine breaks down, and in the absence of a repair service provider, or an ability to pay them, the washing machine loses its utility, and a person's quality of life regresses, which has long term implications for their health.

Beyond simple equipment malfunctions, the complex interplay of incentives, trust and relationships that constitutes a productive enterprise are also disrupted and destroyed by shocks and bankrupties.

It takes years to get a productive enterprise up and running. The bankruptcies happening now will hurt the production of goods/services for years to come.

Fewer goods/services translates to a lower quality of life from less labor-saving specialization/technology, which in turn increases the strain on individuals, and thereby reduces their life expectancy.

The economic factors that affect life expectancy are far more numerous and complex than an inert piece of equipment for harvesting crops or manufacturing goods, and your analysis ignores all of that.

You should at least be able to grasp the implications of the statistical evidence, which clearly show that all things being held equal, every percentile drop in GDP is associated with a drop in life expectancy.

To discount the Economy's relevance to human life is deeply misinformed.

>>You know what can disappear, become depleted, or stretched to thin? Trained medical personal. And money flow can't replenish that resource.

Completely irrelevant to my point. I wasn't suggesting that minimizing strain on the healtcare system isn't important, or even that it isn't more important than avoiding doing some amount of harm to the general economy.

I was simply contesting your claim that the Economy is irrelevant to sustaining human life. I am criticizing how you rudely implied that even suggesting the damage to it should be weighed against the deaths caused by the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, deserves nothing but derision and contempt.

I think the hope is that we could be closer to herd immunity than we think.

Any herd immunity scenario is conditionnal on immunity is long-lasting, which is far from certain considering related viruses are recurring seasonally or in single-digit year intervals.

Don't bet the farm on it.

Even if infection doesn't confer permanent total immunity, subsequent reinfections are likely to be less severe as the immune system is primed to respond. So herd immunity is still a viable strategy.

Maybe, but this particular virus is believed to not mutate much.

Yeah, one leap I often see made is, say a study shows "only" a 0.5% case fatality rate, about 5x as bad as an average flu. It's natural from there to then think letting it run unchecked would only be about 5x as bad as a flu. Very bad, certainly, but perhaps manageable. But that ignores the fact that there is a flu vaccine, and even without one the natural rate of spread of the flu is lower than this virus. So without measures, many more people would be infected and so it would be much worse than 5x an average flu, even if the CFR is indeed 0.5% (for example).

Of course, that doesn't mean these numbers aren't useful for planning and determining what degree of intervention is warranted, as you say.

Edit: could one of those down-voting explain? If I'm making a mistake here I'd like to understand it.