[oldalum]

Pretty certain I never said we were stopping the economy in its tracks . . . solely to save people like me.

Actually, you're right, you didn't! But it sure reads naturally that you meant that the lives saved were old and sick anyway. Anyway, the main point of my response to your post was that your figure of preventing one death at a cost of 1,000 unemployed is wrong. The economic costs are intended to prevent many more future deaths than one. How many is uncertain, of course, but it's also not a dichotomy: policymakers could decide to risk the many more deaths and then have to undergo the economic shutdown anyway, and possibly for longer. Which is the source of the concern about releasing the restrictions prematurely.

[oldalum]

Pretty certain I never said we were stopping the economy in its tracks . . . solely to save people like me.

Actually, you're right, you didn't! But it sure reads naturally that you meant that the lives saved were old and sick anyway. Anyway, the main point of my response to your post was that your figure of preventing one death at a cost of 1,000 unemployed is wrong. The economic costs are intended to prevent many more future deaths than one. How many is uncertain, of course, but it's also not a dichotomy: policymakers could decide to risk the many more deaths and then have to undergo the economic shutdown anyway, and possibly for longer. Which is the source of the concern about releasing the restrictions prematurely.