Hospitals have been built and staffed for estimated peak capacity forever. Slack capacity is extremely expensive.

Here's an article from 2018 about LA County's makeshift flu hospital tent, which they built because the flu season was so bad then: https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-flu-demand-2018...

So, what I suggest is done, is what hospitals have always done, which is do their best to make it work.

"Two weeks to flatten the curve" was all about giving hospitals a chance and not be overwhelmed, and presumably, get better prepared. It's been 1.5 years. How long do you think it's reasonable to extend that 2 weeks to?

The last time hospitals ran during an epidemic of this intensity was in 1920. I think your confidence in the long-term viability of treating a population that has no interest in stemming the virus is completely unwarranted.

If levels stay as is, you're completely right. The issue is that they likely won't and certainly won't if "everyone does what they want."

Acceptable losses from the sounds of it. I find these conversations difficult to discuss because we all have different ideas of what is acceptable losses.

> Children account for 1.3% to 4% of all US hospitalizations for COVID, depending on the US state.

That is an acceptable price to pay for indulging in crankery. /s