- The universal stay-home measure would make more sense if we could have nipped the thing in the bud, like NZ did (which creates its own problems...what does one do next?)
- If viral load determines the severity of the case, then having everyone out and about as the virus spreads means that they are more likely to catch _just enough_ to become ill and then have a weaker case. So more cases overall, but fewer bad ones (this is assuming that the vulnerable are shielded, which I agree with).
Another consideration is that the moral calculus is being made in a mass-utilitarian way; say, lockdown may result in overall better outcomes but may unfairly consign a subset of individuals to worse outcomes because their management of the situation is restricted...this might apply to people living in multi-occupancy houses prevented from staying out during the day or moving.