Ops, my bad!But still 219 million cases are quite alot, wouldn't you say?Plus, if I'm not mistaken, you said 400k die every year right?It's 400k every year since god known when.And that's one disease.

The argument he made was pretty weak. All he did was list other issues that we need to do better handling. We can tackle Covid, malaria, hunger, homelessness etc. Doesn't mean we have to ignore other problems.

Most people, not everyone.Personal experience, mostly I'll admit, based on the evidences.Time of incubation, when the virus started spreading, when the lockdowns around the world were starting to be implemented, and so on.

I mean, I'm not the only one saying this.Can't remember them now, saw plenty on the news, but alot of doctors and researches, including alot of respected ones, have been saying this too.But yeah, I don't have any source to back this up.This part is speculation from my part.

At least I reply to you directly, instead of being petty and doing this.

I was wrong about the numbers, but according to the other user, malaria apparently still kills 400k every year on average.Plus malaria is just one disease.What about the others?Why are just contesting me on this one and ignoring the others?

What I mean to point out by all of this is that the number of deaths caused by curable and uncarable disease, both easily spread and ones that are harder to spread, will be far far far higher than the corona virus, not to mention that they happen every year, while the corona virus will mostly be confined to this one.So why we have a lockdown for this one, while we don't have for the others?If they kill far more than the COVID 19 and happen every year, and lockdown might prove useful in halting their progress?

You all know the answer why.

So you would rather live and be free of this virus and the others die of poverty?

And if your hunch is wrong and we've only infected 20 million (10x the current estimate) the deaths can climb another 2 orders of magnitude. To me I think the risk is not worth it as that would kill roughly 10 million of the 2 billion that would eventually get infected. That's assuming that the death rate remains the same which is unlikely to be the case once the health system gets totally overrun. Once an antibody test is available we can prove whether or not most people already had this and calm things down, but with such a massive possible death toll I don't see how you can come to the conclusion we should stop quarantines based on the possibility (with no evidence) that everyone has/had this already. 

Not stop quarantines per say, but have a better plan.No one here is suggesting to just carry everything as if nothing is happening, but side effects of the medicine can't be worse than the disease itself.Isolate potential groups of risk, demand use of mask and alcohol gel in estabilishments, having a minimum space between people inside said estabilishments, demands that they decrease the number of persons in said place at the same time by half are just some ideas that manage to marriage nicely the idea of preventing people from getting the virus and not nuking the economy completely.

I just want to point out how innacurate most projections have been thus far about the number od deaths/infected.You can say that it is because of the lockdown but I'm skeptical.

We are doing quarantine because this is an unknown that is spreading quickly and killing a good number as it does so. One need only look at the deaths per month in a place like New York City to see how bad this can get and that it overtakes all other causes of death combined when it gets that bad.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/10/upshot/coronavirus-deaths-new-york-city.html

"But even if the current count is perfect, roughly 9,780 people have died of all causes over the past month in New York City, about 5,000 more than is typical.

The numbers for the last two weeks of the period are even more stark: nearly 7,000 dead, more than three times as many deaths as would normally be expected this time of year."

Giving you the same answer as the other post.

Not stop quarantines per say, but have a better plan.No one here is suggesting to just carry everything as if nothing is happening, but side effects of the medicine can't be worse than the disease itself.Isolate potential groups of risk, demand use of mask and alcohol gel in estabilishments, having a minimum space between people inside said estabilishments, demands that they decrease the number of persons in said place at the same time by half are just some ideas that manage to marriage nicely the idea of preventing people from getting the virus and not nuking the economy completely.

I just want to point out how innacurate most projections have been thus far about the number od deaths/infected.You can say that it is because of the lockdown but I'm skeptical.