>The economy must suffer at any and all cost to minimise mortality as far as possible. Sounds good. After all, death is irreversible while economic damage is n

>The economy must suffer at any and all cost to minimise mortality as far as possible. Sounds good. After all, death is irreversible while economic damage is not. >So again, what is an acceptable mortality rate? I'd phrase it more like a flattened curve. Rather than focus on a specific mortality rate, the bound to reopen the economy should be something along the lines: when the curve is flattened enough so hospitals can deal with the incoming infection rate. So this would be local to an area (city size, maybe regional) and would also adjust based on local conditions. Infection rate low enough, open the economy a bit more. Infection rate trending up, close the economy a bit more. If that doesn't result in economy numbers that make the billionaires happy, too god damn bad. Maybe free market uber capitalistic unregulated invisible hand economic theory needs to be rewritten or adjusted for new realities, including a section on why exactly lower wage workers (retail, service) are expected to risk their lives so the economy built on top of them, the one in which the rewards mostly go elsewhere, can function.