Not the point I was making. I do not know which option will lead to less death, neither do you, neither do really the scientists (although they have a better idea). However, a full lockdown will lead to more economic loss at least in the short term than a voluntary lockdown. Long-term, as I said, I don't think any of us can say.
> you might still find that just the "legitimate" cases are enough to really mess up urgent health care for a lot of other people.
Like is currently happening? Yes, my solution wouldn't stop all bad effects. There will be much death regardless, the hope is that the people who are left to die as they chose no protection will "help out" with the number of ICU beds needed in general.
> how would you even check ?
You are in lockdown until you fill in some sort of form with the government, waiving your rights to hospital care in the case of catching Corona. This list is used to make decisions. This part at least is implementable.
What point were you making then? And yes, I think I do know which option will lead to less death, because I actually took the time to do some minimal research and the relevant information wasn't hard to find or terribly ambiguous. It's fine to have a contrarian opinion, based on some effort to ascertain facts and reason about them and we could then have a productive discussion on why our conclusions differ but from everything you said so far my current impression is that you made no such effort whatsoever.
> However, a full lockdown will lead to more economic loss at least in the short term than a voluntary lockdown. Long-term, as I said, I don't think any of us can say.
For some farcial definition of "short term" and "can't say" maybe, but for anything a sane person would care about (quarters or longer) we can just try to compare economic stats.
I mean to me it seems like the herd-immunity/corona-is-a-hoax/hands-off-response countries weren't doing that hot economically either:
https://tradingeconomics.com/sweden/gdp
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/gdp
https://tradingeconomics.com/brazil/gdp
vs
https://tradingeconomics.com/new-zealand/gdp
https://tradingeconomics.com/south-korea/gdp
https://tradingeconomics.com/taiwan/gdp
https://tradingeconomics.com/china/gdp
> You are in lockdown until you fill in some sort of form with the government, waiving your rights to hospital care in the case of catching Corona. This list is used to make decisions. This part at least is implementable.
Why would anyone in their right mind sign such a form, no matter whether they intend to flout lockdown or not? Not without massive penalities. How would you enforce them?
What makes you think so? Did you look at the life-expectancy impact of severe economic downturns and compare them to likely excess fatality figures due to your proposed policy? I suspect not, because last I looked for it I didn't seem to find much evidence for silently killing economic stress.
> This will not stop the ICU beds from filling up obviously,
That's a bit of a problem, because those ICU beds are also known to be useful for people suffering from urgent non-covid related problems. Even if you managed to turn away all the non-lockdowners (how would you even check? Police patrols tattooing people spotted on the street during voluntary lockdown?), you might still find that just the "legitimate" cases are enough to really mess up urgent health care for a lot of other people.