No, lots of people do actually think that, but we believe that three main methods can be employed to mitigate this: 1. aggressive triage based on chances and Q

No, lots of people do actually think that, but we believe that three main methods can be employed to mitigate this: 1. aggressive triage based on chances and QALY remaining 2. increased healthcare funding 3. voluntary isolation of individuals who see lockdown as being preferable to their personal coronavirus risk Will it result in more deaths than February 2020? Sure. But we don't have that choice because sars2 exists now. We think it's better to ration healthcare and therefore doom an unlucky minority, versus rationing life itself for everyone (via lockdowns and restrictions) and slow killing everyone. As far as I can tell, most of the lockdown debate centres around an erroneous idea that we can just do X, Y, Z, and then immunosuppressed Harriet can rejoin the world and avoid contracting coronavirus. But she just can't. Even the original strain would have eventually infected her with high probability unless we continued to cycle lockdowns or she voluntarily isolated.