>that means that LOCKDOWN_COVID19_MORTALITY_REDUCTION - LOCKDOWN_EXTERNALITIES >= 20 million wellbeing-years.
Absolutely wrong. And you are missing:
- lockdown reduction in suffering, due both to the acute phase of the disease and after effects
- No-lockdown-externalities, including damage to the economy if the disease is allowed to spread through the entire population
And perhaps most importantly:
- the risk that a huge reservoir of infected people will lead to repeat waves caused by mutations, and even worse that cross-species infection occurs (we already know cats and dogs can be infected - pigs and poultry could be next); then we risk flu-like antigenic shifts.
Put all this into the equation and I think the only thing we should be contemplating is how to eradicate the virus as soon as possible.
> the only thing we should be contemplating is how to eradicate the virus as soon as possible.
Do you think that eradication is actually a possibility? Or are you using it as a metaphor for "contain it super well"?
There are a number of reasons why eradication is completely infeasible. In short, COVID-19 is a highly infectious respiratory disease and it came from a zoonotic origin. We know there are animal reservoirs at this moment.
Therefore eradication is impossible. We've only ever eradicated two diseases in all of human history.
Absolutely wrong. And you are missing:
- lockdown reduction in suffering, due both to the acute phase of the disease and after effects
- No-lockdown-externalities, including damage to the economy if the disease is allowed to spread through the entire population
And perhaps most importantly:
- the risk that a huge reservoir of infected people will lead to repeat waves caused by mutations, and even worse that cross-species infection occurs (we already know cats and dogs can be infected - pigs and poultry could be next); then we risk flu-like antigenic shifts.
Put all this into the equation and I think the only thing we should be contemplating is how to eradicate the virus as soon as possible.