> It doesn't bode well for a potential future (hopefully avoidable) pandemic that has far higher death rates. I think that if COVID19 was more deadly, we'd hav

> It doesn't bode well for a potential future (hopefully avoidable) pandemic that has far higher death rates. I think that if COVID19 was more deadly, we'd have a lot more agreement on implementing lockdowns, and not nearly as much politicization of the issue. I think that the polarization we are seeing regarding lockdown policies is because COVID19 sits right in the middle of what the population at large thinks of as "very dangerous." It's not quite half-and-half, but I think it breaks down like this: I think it's fair to say that a very large minority looks at a disease that mostly targets the elderly and infirm and thinks, "why don't we take measures to protect the vulnerable populations who aren't getting out much anyway, and let the rest of the world get on with life?" This isn't just about "making money" to these people, it's actually about living your life, and accepting what is in reality a pretty small risk for most healthy people. One the other hand, a not-quite-supermajority believes that a disease which is 10-100 times deadlier than the typical flu when looking at raw fatality numbers is worth significant cost and effort to suppress. This would also include a significant portion of people who are themselves elderly or infirm, and they don't want to risk society neglecting to protect them if everyone else is allowed to go about their business. It could well be that if the fatality rate really was > 3%, you would have a hyper-majority in favor of taking action, which means we would have all been in agreement about how to react, really locked down hard and eliminated it by now.