russ_watters said:
The problem I'm seeing is that people don't attempt to identify or quantify the disease impact itself, but rather simply assume its existence -- or, rather, simply assume it would be worse than the lockdown's impact.
That's an assumption based on your preconceived beliefs, not a conclusion based on facts and logic.
I'll expand on this. ...and we discussed it in significant detail early in the pandemic.
We have a pandemic every year and attempts are made to quantify its economic impact. The flu infects on average 45,000,000 per year, kills an average of about 40,000 Americans a year and costs about $50 billion per year. That's both cost and loss. Lost wages due to lost work, lost consumption due to people staying home for a week...or dying, etc. Cost due to medical care. Medical care cost isn't loss, but let's assume it is for this model. This is with a vaccine that sometimes works, and near zero non-pharmaceutical interventions.
If this scaled linearly for deaths, COVID could cost $500B if 400,000 people die (and I think we're headed in that direction), or by cases maybe $100B if we have 90 million cases. It's logical: 1 week of of lost wages due to being at home sick is about $1,000 and for 90 million cases, that's $90B (or maybe $180B if it is 2 weeks for COVID vs 1 week for flu).
The actual cost of COVID already exceeds the upper one by an order of magnitude.
When we discussed this early in the pandemic, the speculations on mechanisms for closing that order of magnitude or two gap involved overwhelmed hospitals and huge numbers of additional deaths, and basic societal collapse. You even cited those as recently as about a week ago. But that's just wild speculation. But you (and many others) consider it to be such an obvious/inevitable impact as to close a factor of 10 or 100 gap,
that we don't even need to attempt to measure or model it. You/others -- even that popularly cited article about the 1918 flu -- even structure your sentences/frame the question to inexorably mix them. That's just absurdly irrational.
So yeah; if you define your threshold for "negligible" to be 1% or less, then yeah I think there are probably several mitigation strategies that could have rendered the economic impact negligible. Plausible? I'm not naive. I know we're never going to get a mandatory, automated contact tracing app in the US. But that doesn't mean I can't still prefer that we were a country morally/politically capable of it or blame it on the privacy extremists who are preventing it from happening.