Great! Lets review your sources. It'll take me a while to get through all of these, but I'll get to them all. Please in the future take a few minutes to read your own sources though. On a few of these so far, the studies that are being cited directly state the opposite of your argument.

I had this point to make in quite a few responses to your sources, so I'm going to move it here rather than address the same thing over and over again. People are trying to compare the flu to Covid just because its a familiar virus and familiarity is comforting. There are significant differences though that make the comparison between Covid and the Flu useless . Flu has an effective treatment and vaccine, so those that are in a higher risk category that don't want to risk expose can choose a flu shot. There isn't the same case with Covid. The reproduction number, fatality and hospitalization rates are substantially different, as is the length and intensity of treatment required.  


Regarding the predictions on Georgia's early reopening, while its still too early to tell exactly how that would go, this isn't really a great sign. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/05/18/only-america-is-sunday-day-after-thursday/

If it tries to paywall you, heres the important part.


Theres a few interesting parts in your article about how South Korea, did well while the hardest hit states are the ones with the strictest policies. Would it not make more sense to put it the other way around where the states hit the hardest have had to put the strictest measures in place? South Korea dealt with MERS a few years ago, so as soon as they said, hey guys its time to do this again, action was swift and efficient. They had much more efficient shorter term lockdowns because they started before the virus had much traction, and the people all followed them strictly. Italy is a great example for a country that was blindsided by Covid. They had police enforcing that people stay inside, but that was after the point that their hospitals were full, and the fatality rates were 2x higher than ours. They had unchecked covid19 at little fault of their own, and then had to battle it down with very strict measures. We've been sort of half assing it from the beginning, but at least we didn't hit the same rate of transmission Italy did. We end up with a sliding scale where strict measures stay in place for a short amount of time, or lax measures stay in place longer. IE China's crazy forced rounding up of infected people dealt with the problem quick but at substantial cost to civil liberties, somewhat strict for a short period of time (Northern Europe) where people were asked to not go to the grocery store more than once per week, road closures, and really stay away from everyone, or the US where it took us a while before the measures in place were more than just a recommendation. Every time people didn't take the recommendations seriously and got infected, we bumped out the closures longer while we tried to get it under control.  



This is an absolutely valid point. People aren't getting routine vaccinations and research is now focused on covid. In addition, domestic violence and child abuse cases are up. Though I don't have the data available to me to make some sort of equivalency between each person that misses a routine vaccine because nonessential doctors visits are canceled, something to consider is that the damage that Covid has caused so far is already factoring in the measures taken. There were predictions made based on the reproduction rate, the specific conditions for how Covid would spread, and fatality rates as well as long term damage. Medical professionals predicted how much damage Covid would do in different circumstances using the same models we predict the global flu counts and end up fractions of a % off when all said and done. One of the points the article used as evidence was comparing Covid to the flu. You can't try drawing a conclusion of the threat of the flu vs covid solely on the numbers during a still active case and under equal conditions. BADecker and I discussed the 2017-2018 flu, one of the most deadly in modern history, that killed ~80,000 people in the US in another thread. There were 48 million infected and 80,000 killed. Covid is at 1.6 million infected and 95,000 dead. 0.16% of cases resulted in death from the flu compared to 5.9%.



This is 100% not sarcastic. Why are people under the impression that the jobs go away and never come back? If you need 20 people to staff a hotel under normal situations, but then they lose their jobs because no one is traveling and the lockdowns are going on, would there not be lodging demand in however many months when things are free to resume as normal? In 1968 the economy took a 20% hit from a flu people had partial immunity to with half the reproduction rate of Covid19. Everything I can find shows an economic downturn and then uptick after the vaccine became available 4 months later. While I understand there is the possibility for businesses to go under completely and not be able to return, if there is population and demand for goods/services in a location why would that demand go away when things resume? In my case and in my state anyway, my business expenses have been frozen. They'll have to be repaid, but repayment will begin after the emergency orders are lifted. On the contrary, I'd be in worse shape if the restrictions were lifted now, and had to pay expenses but sales were reduced because people chose to stay home.


Again, I agree with the sentiment, but you may want to read the study itself its referencing. Your link directs you to bloomberg, which directs you to wellbeingtrust.org which seems reliable enough, but its not their study. That then directs you to an article published in the JAMA Psychiatry journal which has not been peer reviewed yet. It is well reasoned and thought out, but its not calling itself a study, its a respectable opinion piece. Anyway, even if inclined to treat it as fact, as I will because even if not 100% accurate, it appears to have credible reason behind each of its claims, there are a few parts I imagine we'd both disagree with. It blames the increased sale of firearms during Covid as a major contributor to the increase suicides expected to see over the next 10 years. There is mention of the role isolation and economic stress plays, but its also factoring in the stress and death from the illness itself. I'm not dismissing this point, but heres an important part.



https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fullarticle/2764584


Yup, NYC may lose 900,000 jobs. Compared to how many otherwise?

To be abundantly optimistic, lets use New York state's statistics instead of New York City's. *Will return running the numbers for you*










Overstating of the threat:











Corruption and power driving motives:


























Incompetence of government and experts:










[/quote]