scenarios that take into consideration different intervention methods at various viral reproductive rates.

The tables in the original paper DO indicate significantly lower death and infection numbers if suggested interventions are implemented. I am more than annoyed with some outlets, particularly the Daily Wire (they usually don't actually misrepresent info) for how they publicized the supposed "revision" to the paper.

However, as before the supposed revision, I struggle with logic and wisdom of using such documents as the basis for public policy. Like the climate change models, they rarely line up with what actually happens "on the ground" as Dr Birx pointed out this week (yes, I know other scientists disagree with her assumptions while defending their models). The recommended cures are generally presented as the only options and are represented in a manner that implies behaving otherwise would be immoral.

Ultimately, I do not believe the current universal shutdowns and interventions are a reasonable or a moral response for any extended period of time. If repeated in waves for future flare-ups, they will become worse.

"Anything to save lives" is nothing more than virtue signalling to apply political pressure for a specific agenda. There is an actual moral element that applies to economic damage, where saving a life would be immoral based on the cost. Until we get real about this and have rational discussions and plans to address this, we will continue to be hostage to PC insanity.

Sadly, there is no politically survivable course of action for any politician to do anything more the follow the PC wave of "shut 'er down" in it's various stages.