Robert Wilson said:
I'm spitballing we lose 150-300k - so 3-6X a bad flu season. Should be viewed as a nice victory and have allowed us to roll on pretty smoothly as a society, but it won't. We will continue to lose our ever-lovin' minds and self induce massive damage over and above the death toll by the way we "handle" this.
We lose 20-60k/year as an *annuity* to the flu, and we don't give 1/17 of a sht, societally or economically speaking. Over 600k in the US will die this year of heart disease, about the same number from cancer. 160K will die from lower respiratory disease - we won't lose our minds over that one. But woo hoo corona, now that one will stop the planet on its axis and induce economic panic like you never saw, which will ultimately stack a lot more damage on top of that 150-300k.
False comparisons.
Heart disease isn't contagious, nor do literally hundreds of heart disease patients suddenly descend on medical facilities within a week or two, overwhelming their capacity.
Most heart patients don't endanger the medical professionals caring for them.
Although the effectiveness varies from year to year, medical professionals can and do get flu shots every year that offer some protection. Flu is typically not fatal to people who aren't already in poor health.
The coronavirus, on the other hand, is highly contagious, we don't have a cure, medical facilities in countries that didn't act soon enough (like Italy) are overwhelmed, the death rate is high enough that funeral homes are also overwhelmed. It's a crisis that's temporary, but dire, and strict measures to limit the spread and, we hope, the death toll are entirely appropriate.
Your analysis also ignores the impact on medical professionals. I wonder how many of them will view a death toll of 150,000 to 300,000 when people in their profession are disproportionately represented not only among the dead, but also among those sickened who may suffer permanent lung damage, lose weeks at work, etc.
