@roamer_1
I had two points. This thing is NOT nothing. It WOULD HAVE been worse without shutting everything down. However, that does not automatically imply that the measures taken were appropriate. It needed to be dealt with, however it could have been dealt with without shutting everything down. It could have been much more scaled and focused.
The two are not mutually exclusive.
And you should read that samaritans purse link I posted above.
That is where we differ.
I did not say it is nothing. but already, its virulence and mortality has been greatly (exponentially) reduced. It is a statistical game, and the denominator - The phony infection number - is being radically increased by in-the-wild extrapolation, which was not being done from the start. That, weighted against mortality is bringing the death rate way, way, WAY down, into something approaching reality. Add to that the adjustments being made against the actual deaths, which were horribly inflated, and YES, the mortality is approaching something more akin to flu than to the Black Death.
As to whether it would have been worse, I deny that outright. I will reiterate that the quarantine measures that were taken are laughable. Wholly ineffective. In the agqregate (which is where it is measured in statistics) it will have made little difference. And the 'in the wild' number is proving that.
In the increment it is a different thing. A person at risk CAN be protected in the short term in a quarantine... If the quarantine is absolute. But statistically, supposedly quarantining an entire population - The healthy, not at risk - is an absurdity on its face. Herd immunity is the thing in the end. So protecting against herd immunity is inevitably prolonging the race to cure. End of story.
And I did read the Samaritan's purse link. The link is broken in your post, btw.