@ozblue ,
Here is a scenario which offers a solution that is specifically tailored with different approaches for different demographies, namely the 60 year and older cohort (which is more vulnerable in terms of mortality risk, but is at the same time less economically active), and the sub-60 year cohort (which is the economically active concentration of the population but is also more resilient to the virus).
Under this kind of approach, the most vulnerable sectors of the population (the 60 years and older cohort, whose mortality rate is between 3.6% and 14.8%) ) are placed under lockdown (adequately resourced with carers and medical staff paid multiples of their normal wages in recognition of their willingness to also go into quarantine in order to ensure the safety and comfort of those elderly).
The remainder of the population (the healthy, less vulnerable sub-60 year old cohort which has mortality rates of 1.2% and less, for a weighted average mortality rate of 0.26% - represented by "(A)" in the table below) returns to productive work, but still observing social distancing where practically possible. This proportion of the population numbers around 19m "(B)".
Now, assume an infection rate of 20% in this healthy cohort "(C)".
View attachment 2076622Based on these indicative assumptions, we can estimate the resulting mortality numbers from this cohort, from:
(A) x (B) x (C) .
As can be seen, based on the raw date of the reported number of infections (which I believe is too low, meaning the imputed death rates are too high), 9,900 COVID related deaths will arise.
And, if the actual number of cases is five times the reported number of cases (which, I suspect it could quite easily be) then the currently-inferred mortality rates are 500% too high, and the resulting deaths are less than 2,000.
And if the actual infections are running at 10 times the reported levels then the mortality rates are overstated to that extent and the number of deaths falls to less than 1,000.
Now, of course, it is never nice to talk about human lives in such clinical, numerical terms, but if the "Go Hard, Shut Everything Down" approach will also result in the loss of lives - either directly or indirectly - and if this is likely to be higher than the kind of highly targeted approach that I've described herein (or some derivative of it), then it surely cannot be dismissed out of hand without consideration.
NB. This exercise does not purport to be THE definitive solution; rather, it is intended to start of discussion of the kinds of alternatives to those which governments are defaulting in terms of Shut Everything Down and Shove Hundreds of Hundreds of Billions Into The Hands of The Citizenry.
I mean, do we even know the unintended consequences of wholesale shutdown on the economy and a blowing of the Commonwealth's balance sheet on future standards of living, including healthcare, education and social welfare?
(And please don't misquote me buy saying I am rubbishing the current approach; I'm not. As my opening post on this subject questioned, why are possible alternatives not even being discussed?)
