> Paying for it now with future growth, health and improved revenues coming our way.
If the majority of the people dying are at the end of their lives (or at least at the end of their working lives), doesn't that mean we're shutting down society with no return in the future?
Healthy immune systems seem to be able to handle the coronavirus fine. That's the science.
You can't get revenues (or future health/growth) from the dead.
I don't mean this in a heartless way, but if we're going to say we all believe in science, you can't claim future benefits where there are none.
Are you implying that older people don't have value? They teach the younger generations, they work and produce value, they help raise families and communities. I don't know what kind of jaded economic math you are trying to conjure.
The thought that we could let our older and at risk population get decimated because we didn't think they had economic value is a crass oversimplification and belies a lack of understanding of how our systems work.
> Are you implying that older people don't have value?
No I was explaining the contradiction that you're saying there's some large future benefits from locking everyone inside and essentially halting public life to protect people who are defined by their very much bounded future.
And we've essentially failed to protect the elderly even with lockdowns.
