That the shape of the infection curve is much like that of any other flu / coronavirus is hardly surprising and proves nothing much. What is far more questionable is whether the curve would have been much higher had not every country taken precautions to some degree. And then of course, his implied approach is to regard the deaths as normal and take no action against the epidemic, but is this a moral approach when you believe that with some social changes such as lockdown you can reduce the death count? And how bad has the economic effect really been? We will never know in the UK because of Brexit and elsewhere there is a recession looming. But unlike people, economies can and do come back from the dead.
The real question here is whether the disease could have been better fought by seperating the population into two groups - the over 60s where the death rate is high and the under 60s where the rate is low. The former could have been seriously locked down, the latter could have gone to work as normal and let the virus infect them with little more than a bad cold. To some degree this has happened because the old and cranky like me have fled indoors in fear of the bug whilst youngesters have ignored the rules on the basis, as one put it, of "the old have had their lives and the virus wont kill me". But it could have happend in a better organised way.
The real issue for us golden oldies is how we live what is left of our lives. There is no reason to think that a vaccine will come riding over the horizon any time soon ( I believe the record shortest development time is 4 years ) so the bug isnt going to go away any time soon and will ramp up between now and next May. So if you cant socialise with other than tiny groups, either by common sense or government orders, and you cant sensibly go on holidays etc, just what do you do with your retirement?
