> What I more often see seems to imply we shouldn't have responded at all and should have "toughed it out" and just let people die. It's about making a smart c

> What I more often see seems to imply we shouldn't have responded at all and should have "toughed it out" and just let people die. It's about making a smart cost-benefit analysis. We do this all of the time when it comes to death: for instance, we all willingly hop into cars even knowing there's a non-zero chance we could die in an accident. I can't really blame anybody for the response on day 1 when we were operating in a fog of war with limited trustworthy information, but I think once we learned about the age-stratified risks associated with Covid, we should have focused on protecting the vulnerable and working to restore normal society as much as possible. IMO, here's the big picture concern about the Covid response. The events of the last few years are possibly heading the world towards a global financial meltdown and absolute chaos (including wars) that could possibly lead to far more human suffering than anything Covid could have possibly thrown at us. The total response to Covid shouldn't be evaluated by just the last few years, but by the next decade or so where we reap the consequences.