which is why I asked about acceptable losses and assumptions.
Not trying to start a fight and I'm happy to answer your question (feel free to answer mine if you wish.)
First, I disagree that one life lost is too much. We make trade-offs everyday with air travel, automotive safety, food safety, drugs.... all of which accept some measure of loss for an economic or social benefit.
I think that if the current measures should be balanced against lives lost on both sides. Not sure I care about 401K balance hits from the shutdown (although mine is a disaster) as much as the economic pain that results in unemployment, suicide, child/spouse abuse, drug/alcohol abuse etc. So, one life ... f'em and open up tomorrow. However, if we are talking about a 100K lives managed thru a few more weeks of transitional (assuming that this varies by region) shutdowns... then I support it. The big if to me is the number and the estimates vary greatly.
If Italy has NOT been successful and that is what is required to save ~75K US lives then I am really worried. Because I don't see us following those rules and if this thing is 200K plus lives... then we will be in a situation where the virus has not been "over-hyped" and our economy is in for a mess.
Simple problems = simple answers... but this one is both complicated and complex so no easy answer exists.
Thanks for your thoughts