I get that and I get why we had a lockdown in the short term because the NHS was at risk of being overwhelmed...all of this that you are saying though, the actual science doesn't back any of it up. THe science suggests that in the longer term the economic impacts and the continuing effect of the virus itself will mean the measures we've taken here could well have cost lives rather than saved them. With science you don't just take one variable and ignore literally everything else. You would factor in the people who ARE dying because they can't get care, who are dying because of stress, mental health, not being looked after, loss of income. You factor in the many more who will fall under the same umbrella due to the economic impact of the biggest recession in history (which has been caused primarily by lockdown, not the virus). You factor in the percentage of people who have died of corona virus who would have been likely to die within the same time frame as these economic factors (what you will see is the expected death numbers will drop well below average when the virus subsides)...how many fit and healthy people have died of corona virus in the UK? I don't have an actual definite number but the figures I have seen have only been in the hundreds. You have to factor in the effect on the quiility of life for the people you are most aiming to protect. It's no good saving someone if you make the rest of their life lonely and miserable, because you aren't going to make them live forever. We'd all live longer on average for example if none of us ever got in a car again (over 25,000 less deaths or serious injuries a year straight away). We'd all live longer if none of us drunk alcohol ever again...where do you draw the line with stuff like that?
It's actually quite ridiculous how blinkered and tunnel visioned people's views are on this. The reality is we are dealing with a virus that has a mortality rate of less than 1%....and we have CREATED a global catastrophe that will take many years to fix in order to "fight" the virus...and actually when you look at the number of deaths against the mortality and infection rate it's seriously up for debate how effective these tactics have even been in a lot of countries. Look at the deaths in Germany compared to here...that is an example of an effective way to combat an epidemic vs an unsuccesful one. You can dress up the numbers how you want but there's no way that 30,000 deaths (and counting) looks like an effective strategy at this point. A strategy that causes so much damage and effect sliterally everyone so severely should be with the aim of MAXIMISING the number of people you save...not whatever half arsed attempt at something the UK have made can be called. We still can't even test people in care homes...the exact people this is meant to be to help protect.
When you go on about us saving thousands of lives a day, what are you even basing this on? There are problems here that will take years and years to resolve. There is the impending second wave which we will at present be in no shape at all to cope with. There is the fact that all these at risk people who have been locked up for 3 months, aren't suddenly going to turn healthy or no longer be at risk when you let them back out. A significant number of them will be much less healthy than before. What are you going to do towards the end of the year and every winter from now on? Keep locking them back up again? It is not a viable plan. It isn't even the basis on which to make one around.
It's not a black and white case of just hiding in the cupboard until the monster hopefully leaves the room like a majority of people seem to think it is. It's a very complicated problem, that needs some very smart people in charge of managing it and that isn't something we have had here at any point. There are data based models out there telling you that after 3 weeks a lockdown starts causing more damage than it saves. There's statistical data out there telling you that something as simple as austerity can be linked to nearly HALF A MILLION deaths. Imagine what a prolonged massive economic recession coupled with the fact it wont actually cause the virus to go away will do by comparison. If 30,000 is a tragedy what is a number that has some more zeros on the end of it? Because that's a very genuine possibility as things stand.