Sure, but killing 2% of the world population instead of closing down a couple stores also seems bad.
PRE-EXISTING CONDITION DEATH RATE*
Cardiovascular disease 10.5%
Diabetes 7.3%
Chronic respiratory disease 6.3%
Hypertension 6.0%
Cancer 5.6%
no pre-existing conditions 0.9%
AGE DEATH RATE* 80+ years old 14.8%
70-79 years old 8.0%
60-69 years old 3.6%
50-59 years old 1.3%
40-49 years old 0.4%
30-39 years old 0.2%
20-29 years old 0.2%
10-19 years old 0.2%
0-9 years old no fatalities
Shutting down the economy and quarantining whole areas will do more harm than the virus. Tens of thousands of Americans already die of the flu and Coronavirus us just a very virulent form of that.
I realise that its grim to talk about, but there may actually be economic benefits from the very sickest dying from the virus and thus relieving the burden of large pension and healthcare expenses.
That's a lot of people.
Edit: and it might climb if people aren't getting proper care because the medical system is overloaded.
The best than can be done is to manage and stage its extent as much as possible, to avoid overwhelming healthcare services all at once. The Japanese seem to have the same idea.
Cases should be triaged and medical resources dedicated to those aged 50 and lower, who are still working and in generally good health.
The US pension system across many states, companies, and the federal Government itself is unsustainable, so this virus may be the key to bring those programs back into proper operation. Cities like Chicago will face a huge relief as Coronavirus spreads and lessens their pension burden.
Additionally, the housing freed up could be used by younger people and families, dramatically improving the quality of life for much of society. Inheritances could be used by younger generations to invest in businesses or upgrade personal living situations.
Lower pension and healthcare expenditure will allow lower taxes, perhaps allowing the elimination of payroll taxes.
The deaths will be tragic but from a purely economic perspective Coronavirus looks like a major opportunity for Western societies to de-age. We are very lucky that unlike other Pandemics, this virus is restricted to the sick and elderly, and barely impacts the young and healthy, unlike say the Spanish Flu.
(note: I know nothing when it comes to health related issues like this so I'm assuming it's completely naive thought since I haven't seen anyone else mention anything similar)
I think this will take a long long time. so far that hasn't happened with SARS and MERS. (we also don't have a vaccine for those 17 years later).
Ex: You're 35, but you have asthma and high blood pressure.
Does that mean your mortality rate is 12.7%?
Also, your list says: > no pre-existing conditions 0.9% and > 10-19 years old 0.2% Does that mean a teenager with no pre-existing conditions has 1.1% mortality rate, or is it just 0.9%, or just 0.2%?
I'm honestly asking cause I know nothing about disease or mortality rates.
>I realise that its grim to talk about, but there may actually be economic benefits from the very sickest dying from the virus and thus relieving the burden of large pension and healthcare expenses.
What an optimistic perspective... I would think that this is more likely to over burden our already fragile health care systems in the short to medium term though.