There might be a few that are promoting "let die who is going to die" but I don't think that is the general conservative view.

I look at it like more of a "how can we protect the vulnerable without destroying the rest of the nation". Maybe it makes more sense to quaranteen the vulnerable and let the healthy take their chances as they see fit (they can always self quarantine if they want).

The other big question some of us raise, is what we are doing actually going to reduce total deaths? Or just delay them by a few months or a year? If it is the latter, then does destroying the economy gain us that much? I don't think anyone knows the answer to those questions and we are taking one path. All some of us are doing is trying to have a discussion if another path would work better.

No one wants people to die. But if we only extend their lives by a few months and they end up getting the virus eventually anyway, was it worth the cost?

The other big question is just how long can we keep people couped up in apartments in cities of millions of people with many losing their jobs, can't pay their rent, with no money for food and no near term prospects. Psychology is going to come into play with the masses VERY soon. Has to a degree already. It is going to get worse as long as the lock down exists. There will come a time when people revolt. Do we let that happen? Or do something proactive?

John