More 'informed' skepticism

Another alternative view for you. A NZ epidemiologist who doesn't equivocate . He concludes:

"It is important that the public health response matches the threat posed to our health. It is important we keep abreast of developments, such as tests of immunity, so that we can return to normality quickly.
We don't want to squash a flea with a sledgehammer and bring the house down. I believe that other countries, such as Sweden, are steering a more sensible course through this turbulent time."

In a similar vein, I watched most of this yesterday. More rates than you can shake a stick at. The friend who sent it to me, an economist, wrote:

The arithmetic is accurate.
As a benchmark, it's estimated the "Spanish flu" virus of 1918 infected up to one-third of the total global population, and on average killed up to 5% of those it infected (i.e. up to about 2% of the total global population), over the course of several years.  See  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_flu
Without a miracle and instant mass vaccine (not likely to arrive), the coronavirus pandemic will end when the global population has developed sufficient "herd immunity", and not until then.  It seems unlikely that any particular national population can isolate itself from that reality for long. So we certainly are incurring vast economic and social cost for an uncertain benefit (if any).
And if your immune system doesn't save you, it's unlikely any "health system" will.…
Off to the gym!