It's not "save the economy" vs "save lives", as if the two are independent, as if we have one single decision point.

If heaps of people die, the economy will tank.

If the economy tanks, real people will experience real and intense suffering, and some will die.

If we lockdown, we might have to lockdown more later. Or maybe we give up on it. Or maybe it keeps us stable.

If we don't lockdown, maybe it gets worse than we anticipate, and we'd be forced to lockdown anyway, with an even greater human and economic toll.

Maybe we don't lockdown, but people are scared enough that we get a de facto lockdown. Maybe *we* become the place that other countries try to quarantine.

Maybe we'd get saddled with all the economic cost even if we tried to avoid it.

Everything is a maybe. We don't know. Anyone who tells you they know is a charlatan, and anyone who tells you they know because the bank economist told them so doesn't understand what economic forecasts are.

We'll get answers about what works and what doesn't soon enough.

Like honestly, you think the banks' models are robust for [*gestures around*]?