Maggie's Farm

My guess is the difference is based on 3 things.
First politics. I still haven't figured out the angle here outside of "never let a crisis go to waste". The Left/Right differences about the shutdown itself are almost non-existent outside of extremes of "stay isolated" and "open immediately". Both are foolish points of view, but seem to be the main measure of political differentiation. Deeper down is a political difference based on economic illiteracy or literacy. What drives production and value?
The Left thinks it's government. The Right has a better grasp on the issue of productivity and value...that sitting at home and having printed money arrive each week is not productive or beneficial to anyone.

The second difference is memory. As I said to Mrs. Bulldog, people in the age of the vaccine (post 1960) have come to believe we are not only 'safe' from most diseases, but we need to take 'any step necessary' to be 'safe'. It's a strange viewpoint, but nobody remembers (and being born in 1962, I don't...though I understand history) that we just went about our business and we tried to protect people as best we could.

Which brings us to the third difference. Fear. We really do live in an age of fear. That is, fear of loss. Loss of anything. Money, a loved one, our homes, our livelihoods (a point which goes back up to the first difference), and our general health. Triggering fear is much easier with the 24/7 news cycle and social media. Doesn't take much to freak people out. We're only 82 years removed from Orson Welles' "War of the Worlds", but we may as well be 2,000 because the impact of all the available news sources is so much greater.

I'm not sure this is a difference, because this part was probably true back in 1968. But we confuse information with "science" and "certainty". Many people refuse to use common sense. "They say" is far more common today because "they" are everywhere. And "they" are all authorities.

I don't make a claim on authority. I will make a claim on using my head and use of common sense. That's pretty much all you need to survive and thrive, most of the time. A little knowledge and understanding, rather than just acceptance of information, can go a long way. Sadly, it's not how information is dealt with any more.

Modeling isn't science. It's a guess. It has assumptions and parameters and you can make models do all kinds of things depending on how you manage them. Like tell people 2 million US citizens will die....and scare them into submission.

I doubt we'll hit 120,000. I could be wrong, and if I am, I will accept I underestimated the danger (assuming I survive...). But 120,000 would be a pretty bad scenario when the low scenario from the Imperial College of 60,000 is probably going to be the ultimate number.

I didn't mention MMT. But it did exist in a form. Chartalism isn't MMT, but it's not a distant cousin, and that's been around a long time.

Both are based on flawed financial concepts. But hey - to each his own.

Yes, I know. I posted that without checking the numbers for the day.
In reality, the number is essentially going to be fluid. We don't know (since it's becoming clear hospitals make more by listing Covid patients by a factor of 3) how many administrators are overstating.

We also don't know comorbidity rates and other factors which wouldn't necessarily lower Covid mortality rates, but would at least provide a window on how it could have been dealt with more effectively.

120,000 may ultimately be the figure. It may be 150,000. or higher. As I said, I'm not an authority - and the number of deaths is secondary to the discussion (unless, of course, you know someone - or are someone - who died) of whether we should open up or even how we open up.

We were told to lock down because the number was 2mm. If we even get there...