> If it is “only” two times more, then we need to have an adult conversation on how many lives are worth saving vs our society going through something akin to the great depression.

Why is it that only two choices ever exist when this argument is presented? Choose either death by virus or death by status quo economy. It seems like a more pleasant alternative would be reshaping our economic systems to be more resilient against such a crisis which will almost certainly occur again in the future. Maybe the current ownership and distribution models and how they relate to globalism aren't compatible with something that is now simply a fact of life.