Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
I think, and I hope you agree... We should have done this all differently, especially based on the knowledge that healthy people statistically will be fine, we didn't need to let the world just crash the way it has
Look at those countries that largely put the economy first. US, Brazil. US has nearly 200k deaths and rising. At a time of year when illnesses have less effect or ability to spread due to high levels of sunlight/UV and hot conditions. Plus with measures like distancing, minor lockdowns, masks etc.
Without those measures and if it'd hit at the end of autumn/beginning of winter it'd be so bad a shitstorm it's doesn't bear thinking about. The worst case scenario for winter is 120k extra deaths directly linked to Covid (i.e. either directly from it people with other illnesses that would've survived but for the extra infection). Lowest expectation is 25k. For example it was said less than 20k deaths would have been a good outcome from the initial wave - we're double that. Before long we'll have more than 1 MILLION people around have world died from it.
And you always ignore the fact it's not that much about the healthy, young people (although they aren't immune, just see this board as an example) - it's about who they spread it to. The ones that aren't healthy or young.
People seem to want the tail to wag the dog. The economy exists because people exist. No people, no economy. So the economy should alter for the needs of the people, not the people putting themselves at unnecessary risk for the needs of the economy.