Hi Dave, my simple point is that there’s zero benefit in acting as if 100% of the population is at risk when in reality it is less than 2% based on all available evidence so far. Therefore, instead of throwing hundreds of millions into poverty and starvation across Africa and Asia and throwing tens of millions into financial insecurity in the West and spending trillions of dollars bailing out corporations, a fraction of that money spent in a focused manner could have done much more to protect those who actually are at risk, without imposing absurdly unnecessary costs on everyone else. This would have done more to “flatten the curve” than all the knee-jerk ill conceived government panic reactions combined. There really is no substitute for thinking and reasoned action; wild flailing and panic never results in good outcomes.