Enough dead ends? It doesn't matter. One way (the way we have ALWAYS done it) will end MUCH MUCH faster. it is simple math. The other "brand new" method will take a lot longer.The part of your logic that I disagree with is the notion that the virus will come to enough dead ends that it will die out quickly if left unhindered. Unless all possible hosts, human and animal, die, it will persist. There will always be naive potential hosts being born. Weighing the costs of the medical treatments, the deaths, a potential invalid population, is complicated.
Different countries are trying different strategies. Sweden comes the closest to your idea, partly with the hope of saving the economy, and it looked for the first month or so that their strategy was working. However then even with mortality exceeding that of their neighboring countries, their economy also suffered tremendous losses even though not shut down. It remains to be seen how it will turn out.
Sweden's controversial anti-lockdown strategy resulted in a high death toll and no real economic gain, data shows
"They literally gained nothing," an economist told The New York Times. "It's a self-inflicted wound, and they have no economic gains."www.businessinsider.com
Explain how that is wrong. Use math if you can, feelings are not a good method.
Are you saying that article I posted from yesterday is wrong? Are you saying Sweden is still in lock down? Where do you get your information from? I can't see the article on that US Business site you posted (wants me to join something). I can find a bunch of articles about them being open and past the outbreak. How many links do I need to post for you to believe it?
Last edited: