But each new person who gets it is a potential spreader, which increases the likelihood of an at-risk person getting it. Someone who may be elderly or immunocompromised, who can be seriously hurt or killed by it.
Given the level of lockdowns we've seen so far, that is minimal. Especially if the government is smart enough to simply pay the wages of people who are forced to not work (which would also give a massive boost to the economy).
Do you understand that it is not percents? Those are ratios? Do you realize that for 70+ IFR is 5%, and for 50-69 is 0.5%? You can consider anything I cannot force ypu to tyhink otherwise, but something that kills 1 in 18 senior citizen is something of extreme public health concern.
Of course the number seems high if you focus on a particularly vulnerable group. All that matters is the IFR across the entire population, as the entire population is being harmed by lockdowns.
I know its a ratio. You can consider it too high/extreme, I cannot force you to think otherwise. I'm not against doing something about it. What I'm against is if the answer of 'doing something about it' is lockdown. To me this cure is worse than the disease.
