Habryka’s point is that roughly the same number of people would’ve died either way, because in both situations the same number of people will get it – something like 40%. But in one of them we *also* shut down the economy for over a year. That’s why it’s the worst of both worlds – worst of deaths, worst of economy.
You can consider it, but you cannot get it in most Western countries. Either way, it doesn’t change Habryka’s point that we’re currently in the worst possible world.
Have a look at the state of Victoria in Australia, which went from close to 700 cases a day in early August to zero in about 8 weeks. https://www.covid19data.com.au/victoria
Well, the financial costs would have been. How much value are you assigning to a life?
Habryka’s point is that roughly the same number of people would’ve died either way, because in both situations the same number of people will get it – something like 40%. But in one of them we *also* shut down the economy for over a year. That’s why it’s the worst of both worlds – worst of deaths, worst of economy.
You mean it’s a comparison between no shutdown and ineffective shutdown? Why not consider effective shutdown as a further alternative?
You can consider it, but you cannot get it in most Western countries. Either way, it doesn’t change Habryka’s point that we’re currently in the worst possible world.
For some value of “we”.