Bit of a trick/tricky question in a few ways, but for one, if the economy doesn't come back, then you can pretty much forget about bringing dead people back period, so it better be able to come back strong, if that's the point of course.
The question would be like asking, 'Which one would we have a better chance at? Saving people's lives from Covid 19, or keeping the economy quite strong?' The question to that answer is pretty obvious, yet that wasn't even up for debate because saving as many people as possible was seen as much more important. So really, is the question worth asking in the first place?
1) dead is dead, and not coming back, reguardless of how the economy is.
2) "it better be able to come back strong, if thats the point of course"
The reason for the shutdowns, wasn't to "help the economy come back", but to safe lives.
3) "Which one would we have a better chance at? Saving people's lives from Covid 19, or keeping the economy quite strong"
They are both connected. You cant have a healthy economy if people are scared to go out, if they notice people dropping like flies.
Also their not equal. A economy can recover, a dead person wont be brougth back to life, lateron.
The virus is gone now, its safe to come back to life! Doesnt work like that.
Unfortunately I can't take that very seriously. So far the professionals educated guesses have been quite poor in this situation.
If team America, world police, did nothing about 911/terrorism, and does nothing going forward, where would we be exactly?
I don't know anyone who can reliably tell the future,
or who can guarantee a different specific past outcome if changes were made.
I think scientists have a pretty good idea now.
If you look at CFR, it varies from country to country (right now in the USA its at 20%, other places its lower).
However due to antibody tests, you can kinda get a idea of how many are actually infected, and compaire that to the deaths to get a idea of IFR (deaths per infected).
IFR is looking like its slightly above 0,7% (currently).
Various countries with antibody tests have come out with IFR numbers of so.
So we can know a possible "worst" case situation now.
We can know a "what if we did nothing and it just spread until ~70% for herd immunity.
(and our health care system didnt collapse)
Brazil is about a week or two away from hospital collapse (they say so themselves, atleast).
If that happends, its IFR will go from those ~0.7% and upto potentially 5% (john campbell estimate).
So its one too keep your eyes on, if their deaths start Sky rocketing up in a week or two, we'll start to get a picture of what happends if you went for the economy instead of saveing lives.
Think you're missing context from the earlier part of the conversation.
-You are you and aren't anyone else. Unless you get cloned. Then you are now two. Have clones always existed? What led to cloning?
-The reason for coming back strong, if that's the point, would be for financial progress leading to scientific reanimation progress and eventual success.
-You also can't have a healthy economy if you don't allow people to go out who want to as safely as possible. Those who want to stay home because they are scared, are free to do so. Most people aren't forced to go to war, they can stay safe at home. Not all economies can recover. If they could, certain empires would have existed for much longer. If you 'kill' an economy, you almost certainly cause more damage overall than would have been otherwise, other than in the worst case scenario's. A dead person can't be brought back as of now. If they could be brought back, say in 50 years, would that be ok since the economy has to recover over time as well?
Scientists would have a better idea assuming they could go back and make some changes without anything else changing because of it or just by chance. Cause and effect are about as core as it get's. To assume changes could be made without something else changing and throwing things off is assuming the universe doesn't work like it actually does. I'm not saying you're definitely wrong, I'm just saying there's no way for anyone to be truly confident that some changes could have been made and everything else would have remained the same and worked out exactly as they assumed it might.
If only we had spend more time and money on preparing for and preventing viral outbreaks instead of focusing on terrorism, which is by far the smallest cause of death. Of course terrorism hurts the economy, so that's why it gets all the attention.
For every one American killed by an act of terror in the United States or abroad in 2014, more than 1,049 died because of guns.
Using numbers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, we found that from 2001 to 2014, 440,095 people died by firearms on US soil. (2014 is the most recent year for which the CDC has data for deaths by firearms.) This data covered all manners of death, including homicide, accident and suicide.
According to the US State Department, the number of US citizens killed overseas as a result of incidents of terrorism from 2001 to 2014 was 369. n addition, we compiled all terrorism incidents inside the United States and found that between 2001 and 2014, there were 3,043 people killed in domestic acts of terrorism.* This brings the total to 3,412.
That includes 9/11. Spending the money on better flu prevention would have helped for covid19 as well. Especially since covid19 managed to spread undetected so long disguised as just a bad flu. Had airports had better disease detection instead of those useless body scanners for weapons, a lot more lives could have been saved.
Hopefully we don't eventually find out this was terrorism, and not necessarily by the Chinese, because that would be some very scary world changing news.