One other quick note on my point above about case for lockdown. I am sure there are a ton of unknowns on the actual costs of the lockdown, but a back of the env

One other quick note on my point above about case for lockdown. I am sure there are a ton of unknowns on the actual costs of the lockdown, but a back of the envelope suggest maybe 2 weeks of GDP seem directionally correct for the US, or about $1T. Assuming a QALY value of $100k. If you assume the official lockdown saved even 500k lives (only considering official lockdown, not other measures like voluntary social distancing, etc). If you assume the QALY for the group that died is 6 (I read this estimate somewhere but don't have source, seems to make ballpark sense because deaths are weighted towards elderly with comorbitities). Then you have a value of 100k500k6=$300B vs about $1T cost. You can play around with these variables, for example if you feel in the US our value for a QALY should be 2x Canada and 4x UK, then use $200k. If you feel that the majority of the viral suppression was from masks, distancing, and other voluntary efforts, then you might reduce the lives saved by the lockdown estimate down to 100k. Again, I dislike "like the flu" arguments, because I think we can just debate the actual merits of a policy. In this case, using almost any assumptions, the lockdown doesn't make sense versus other health measures we could be spending money on.