ok, so lots of people are asking for data to support why I don't think people should listen to the reckons of the epidemiologist who says we "don't want to squash a flea with a sledgehammer and bring the house down". Here's a thread.

He used the case-fatality rate (CFR) of the Diamond Princess (that most people think is unrealistically low) to give us 0.125% when applied across NZ's population. Using a more realistic estimate based on~70,000 cases and ~3,000 deaths we get 0.88% ( https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.09.20033357v1)

When he says"A recent analysis of deaths in Italy..." he's referring to a 2-week old report that only 3 out of 355 deaths had no serious comorbidities. Italy now has over 11,591 deaths - this is some serious cherry-picking.

Also please note, regardless of comorbidities these are people that would not have died. If COVID-19 causes hospitals to reach capacity when they otherwise wouldn't have, and this results in deaths, then I don't think it's unreasonable to say those deaths are due to COVID-19.

"Meta-analysis of social distancing measures found that intervention was not strongly supported since little evaluation of these policies had been done...." Well, it's not like we've needed them like this before so I think that is being disingenuous. They clearly worked in China

As for holding Sweden up as an example of a country to follow, let's revisit that in a week or so shall we?

"Meta-analysis of social distancing measures found that intervention was not strongly supported since little evaluation of these policies had been done...." Well, it's not like we've needed them like this before so I think that is being disingenuous. They clearly worked in China

Also please note, regardless of comorbidities these are people that would not have died. If COVID-19 causes hospitals to reach capacity when they otherwise wouldn't have, and this results in deaths, then I don't think it's unreasonable to say those deaths are due to COVID-19.