They are giving advice which has no negative impact on themselves. Public Health is about more than viral infections.
I repeat this is scurrilous nonsense.
This is not a valid criteria. Either their advice is sound or it it not.
You are comparing over 200 different DNA and RNA viruses to a single RNA virus. How is that relevant?
How is it not? Viruses develop different strains. You can be re-infected with differenrt strains.
Okay, so now we are at the crux of it. The answer is to balance the number of people who will die as a result of no lockdown against the numbers who will die as a result of a lockdown. Do remember that there are now 25,000,000 in Pakistan alone at risk of starvation due to the lockdowns in rich Western countries. There is no scenario in which Covid kills more people than the lockdowns we now have in place and in the longer term the lockdowns may just lengthen the curve but not really reduce the total deaths.
And where from the Barrington experts is that range of deaths, per country?
And the evidence for the estimate.
So how can you say, there is no scenario in which Covid kills more people?
And I mean real scenarios, not nonsense about Pakistan. e.g. How many people are at risk of starvation in Pakistan, if we let this virus overwhelm the western world public health system?
Really? It's a respiratory disease in the Coronavirus family. Millions of people have contracted it and recovered from it. Are you suggesting that it will act vastly differently from other viruses within that family and that the millions of people who have been examined have some disabilities which have all been missed?
It's a new virus, I don't know, and the experts don't proclaim to know for sure how it will act long term.
Millions have been thoroughly examined for long term effects? Where is that study?