Jonathan Carone wrote: ↑July 3rd, 2020, 10:00 am But it’s not just fatality rate we’re concerned with. Hasn’t the reason for lockdowns since the beginning been making sure the hospitals weren’t overwhelmed? That’s the number we need to be tracking alongside fatality rate. Just because someone doesn’t die doesn’t mean this virus isn’t causing serious hospital stays with potential lifelong damage.That is correct, but hospitals have not come close to being "overwhelmed" anywhere in the US at any point. In Houston, where much was made for a couple of days about the high % of ICU beds occupied, it turned out only 27% of them were for Covid, and the others were full largely because of people recovering in ICU from surgery as they are trying to catch up with the backlog of "elective" procedures banned during the lockdown. Keep in mind that "elective" does not mean minor. These include things like cancer and heart surgery and even transplants. Meanwhile, the Covid field hospital the Army Corps built, with 250 beds ready to go and the capacity to expand to 2000, sits vacant.
Edit - I think local lockdowns are better than statewide ones. I can get behind not doing statewide shutdowns anymore.
The fact that younger people are not as affected by this disease goes way beyond mortality rate. They don't get nearly as sick, and when hospitalization is required, it is generally brief.
I totally agree that decisions on shutdowns should be local.