I don’t think this article makes sense…acceptable rate of loss should be what society is based on. We could have 0 deaths from car accidents by banning cars, but we don’t because that would negatively affect quality of life (and people may die of heatstroke while walking/biking places in the summer). We could have 0 flu deaths every winter by having a draconian lockdown, but we don’t want to. Keeping Covid lockdowns until there are 0 deaths doesn’t make sense…lockdowns could send people into poverty and kill people with dementia who can’t handle the social isolation. We always have to weigh the benefits and the cons.
Just to clarify, I support lockdowns when case rates are high, masking, and vaccination. However, saying “there is no acceptable rate of loss” doesn’t make sense to me.