You bring up some really good points. When this is all said and done, very few of us will have died, but almost all of us will have suffered. People are losing jobs, being laid off, presumably losing their houses and livelihoods, delaying retirement, among many other consequences. I'm not going to sit here and say that we should value the economy and quality of life for the country over 1 life or 100,000 lives. I'm also not going to say we shouldn't. I simply don't know the answer. I know we lose 40K people or so per year to influenza, 50K to suicide, 146K per year to stroke, 674K to heart disease, and many others, we try to improve these things and we push on. We live to die, eventually. It's a thought provoking, maybe even philosophical debate. But no, I don't think we can afford to respond like this with every pandemic. I don't know what the right level of reaction is. I can completely sympathize with the standpoint that they'd rather overreact now and err on the side of caution to save lives now even if it gets looked at as an overreaction in hindsight. That's perfectly valid. But each reaction has consequences, and death is far from the only one. Everybody losing their job ---> government subsidized healthcare OR greatly diminished state of health and mind. This is absolute insanity, there had best be a GOOD reason for the precautions we are doing when we look back in a year or two, because we have effectively 1929'd our economy in the name of avoiding something that's going to get us anyway in the end. This isn't 2008 bailing out bankers, we're doing it to ourselves and the ramnifications could be far worse than 2008 if it is not short in duration. I'm pretty darn depressed after watching today's edition of coronavirus conference on tv. Things are quickly going to go down the toilet if it doesn't change soon.