Someone over 70 is 270x as likely to die of COVID as someone under 50. For anyone under 50 without co-morbidity, then this is just a yearly flu — and destroying your economic future over the flu doesn’t make sense.
Having a blanket policy that ignores those differences is unrealistic.
IFR numbers are from the CDC’s best estimate:
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scena...
Begs the question.
You build in the assumption that policy responses to a pandemic will harm the economy, and then don't do any work to establish that policy responses in this pandemic have prioritized lives over the economy, or to demonstrate that policy responses that weren't used would have been similar, etc.
(I'm talking about all the elderly that died if it isn't clear what evidence I'm referring to)
Of course, the awful thing is that controlling the virus in May (I mean actually doing it, not just having a pause) would have been better for the economy. But we are too stupid for that.