Out of the first 4,984 deaths in the US from confirmed COVID-19 cases, 2 of them were under 15. That's 0.04% of the total deaths and, to the extent that US numbers follow other countries that are further along, both kids likely had severe other underlying symptoms (not saying they would have died anyways, but a child with a weak respiratory system should consider themselves high risk and homeschool during this time). Flu deaths may well be 33 times less likely than COVID-19 deaths among kids, but that would just mean that a much smaller number of the total deaths from flu are among kids. It does not mean that COVID-19 will ravage the younger population. I am also not aware of any study that has a true N for infections of COVID-19 at this point and so the likelihood must be based on symptomatic infections and I highly suspect asymptomatic infections are a lot more common with COVID-19 among small children than the flu.

Period...Hard Stop (seriously, what's that supposed to mean anyways...is it saying your argument is so compelling I shouldn't even try to respond or refute it?...as if I haven't thought of this before so my mind must be blown? If you haven't realized that reasonable minds can differ on this issue and the best path forward is difficult to decipher then I question your judgment and credibility. The path forward is not a slam dunk decision.

You assume herd immunity will eventually set in (meaning you believe this will be widely spread regardless of any measures we take), but if that's the case then we should be strategic in managing the spread based on the healthcare system capacity rather than just slowing it everywhere like we are doing now. Flattening the curve without reducing the area under the curve means shelter in place will last longer than it otherwise would and put more high risk persons in danger when they violate strict quarantine recommendations. We know high risk individuals will not be perfectly compliant and so the longer we push back herd immunity the more opportunities high risk individuals will have to catch the virus if trips to the grocery store are constant over time. I suspect that compliance will actually decline the longer this runs. This means we could be flattening the curve, but also increasing the area under it because we're delaying the time that low risk groups achieve herd immunity.

For example, if schools were opened back up without other steps then there would certainly be more spreading to the high risk groups, but that's neglecting the other recommendations. High risk groups should be under strict quarantines for several weeks during this time of rapid spread. It would be a lot easier for these groups to do that if they announced that schools were open and that all high risk persons should take extreme precautions for at least a six to ten week period. While you may say that is not realistic, it's actually a lot more realistic than doing a far weaker version of the same thing for several months at a time, but with everyone. There are some hot spots (NY, WA, NO) where the current precautions are absolutely appropriate (although I think schools and day cares could still be open), but many places around the country have empty ERs and very few COVID-19 patients and they're already patting themselves on the back. If the virus is going to spread everywhere anyways with anything close to the numbers projected, then everywhere will either become a hot spot or just have a slow burn that takes months to work through. What will our economy look like if we hit the Fall still under house arrest? It makes sense to me to be strategic about opening up economies rather than just shutting most of the world down for months. None of this takes into account increases in suicide rates, domestic abuse, and overdoses that will happen in a down economy. I think it's very possible that the remedy we're applying is worse than the disease.