@JAA If this is what you think I'm saying, then I understand why you are disagreeing. That is not what I am saying at all.
I'm saying there is a hypothetical point in the future where the economic impact COULD kill more people than the virus. I don't believe we have hit that point at all (sorry, I guess I was assuming that was obvious). It is simply something to be cognizant of as we move forward in our decision making. We can't just commit to indefinite orders of stay-at-home without there being some real consequences and those include increased death rates from poverty. At some point in time, the net effect of quarantining ourselves will become negative along a long enough timeline. I have no idea how long that is, and no one does. There is a hypothetical ideal point of quarantine (some kind of phasing or combination no doubt) that will both save the optimal number of lives from the virus while risking the minimal number of lives through the economic impact. I hope we can get as close to that as possible.
However, I think we can all agree that without widespread testing we will be shooting in the dark. Also, I agree that we would have been much better off to have acted much quicker than we did with stay-at-home orders. This whole thing has been handled poorly by our nation in comparison to nations like South Korea and Germany.