...why don't we just do this all the time? I mean after all, we lose over 50k people yearly to the flu and over 17 million worldwide to infectious diseases. Clearly social distancing works. If we could cut those numbers in half, wouldn't that be a great way to go?
And if your answer is it's because we don't have a vaccine, then let's say one gets developed and we lose 150k-200k yearly to the corona virus with the vaccine. You good with that?
No political slant from me - the truth is that every single person has a different "acceptability" of deaths from COVID. But my thought is that this won't be the last time we do this.
Social distancing and shutting down was the only choice we had to prevent "significant deaths". No one arguing that. We are looking at numbers of around 60K deaths right now projected. No one really knows what the death count would have been had we done nothing. I think it could have been 200-300K, maybe more. We don't have a vaccine for this, so if this 200-300K projection is right, we saved around approximately 200K lives. My personal belief is that 200K lives justifies what we did. But again, everyone's number is different based on what they believe. I will not argue with someone who says 2 is the number, or 2M is the number.
Although I don't think this is the case, but let's assume that without social distancing, the number of deaths would have been 80K. So, basically we save 20K lives. 20K lives is a lot, and someone I know and love could have been in that 20K. But a nationwide shutdown seems like overkill in the big picture for saving 20K of lives, most of which were probably people that weren't that healthy to start.
A vaccine changes everything. What would flu deaths be without vaccines? I am no doctor, but I think 50K would be more like 100-150K without the vaccine.
So, once we get a vaccine for this thing, we will at least half the deaths from it, if not more, which will eliminate the need for shutting down the world. Of course, vaccine plus social distancing would reduce it more, but I am not sure that anyone can argue that shutting down the economy for a long period of time is a good thing, and should be used only in extreme cases or if there is a great deal of uncertainty.
This is a polarizing debate - how many lives justify a significant economic response. There is a balance here, and no matter who makes the decision and when, there will be 50% of those who strongly disagree. The new America.
There will be other viruses that come out of wherever in the future - they will be unknown, and will kill many people. And the world will once again be unprepared, as we can't build a vaccine if we don't know what we are building it for. My greatest hope is that we are somewhat more prepared generally for these things in the future. The private sector, had they not been handcuffed by governmental red tape, would have solved both testing and probably vaccine at this point. There are people in labs at Universities and business all over the country that have spent their whole life getting ready for this. They are just better and probably smarter than most in public sector. And definitely more nimble. When these things happen, let the private sector take over, with reduced governmental BS.
I am sure many will not agree with some all or none of this, and that's OK. I am probably wrong on some of this and right on some.