We instead could compare the number of deaths if we quarantine, vs if we don't, and then choose the path with the least number of deaths. If for example, we co

We instead could compare the number of deaths if we quarantine, vs if we don't, and then choose the path with the least number of deaths. If for example, we could no longer produce food due to quarantining (not the case, as essential industries are still operating-- but imagine for some reason, we did shut down food production), and 100 million would die vs 200,000-- clearly the better option would be to not quarantine. So, I don't know if this a debate of semantics, but "economic losses" that would turn into actual loss of human life (e.g., due to starvation) are being accounted for.