I'm not sure I agree with your assumption. I think the evidence is Covid19 kills 1% of those it infects (with the caveat we now know better who the 1% are). Without a lockdown I think there would be up to 1% death (so that's 700k or so in the UK) and within a month or two.
You've not answered my question though have you? You were asking MM to place a value on a life. I'm asking you to confirm why a covid life saved is worth more than another life lost. We know that will be happening and is - see the paper headlines about the cancer patient today. You're saying it's dangerous to pick who to save but lockdown is doing that on a grand scale.
Your point about we know who it affects now (which we did at the time from experience abroad anyway) is interesting. So is the harm of locking down for all age groups better than locking down just the vulnerable groups?
The would be no case of anyone getting any treatment in that scenario as the NHS would be swamped.
Agree - but that's supposing the action was to do nothing, which I've not seen advocated generally, although I think Four might have said something. Clearly the NHS had to be shielded from a surge, with the alternative being to just put people in rooms out of the way to die, which clearly isn't acceptable. Whether the way we did it was right, I'm not so sure.
Now, as no one has let C19 rip (not in a densely populated country anyway) we haven't seen the 'control' of the experiment run which has allowed people to start (as MM does ,and four) rubbishing the lockdown and what it has achieved.
But he wasn't rubbishing the lockdown when you kept asking the life question, he was linking to articles suggesting the harm it's causing may outweigh the benefits. That's advocating a partial or complete lifting of the lockdown, not rubbishing it.
The problem is that it was clear without a lock down C19 would simply let rip and rapidly - in a few months. Health care system under strain everywhere. Its not either or it is which was worse; lockdown and control or not lock down and chaos. I pick the former - most govt have too. I don't think lockdown is anything other than a bad option but not as bad as the alternative.
Again I'd tend to agree, although you could argue letting it rip would be better in the long run if we don't get more effective treatments or a vaccine and the disease becomes as prevalent and seasonal as flu. That's a rather nasty gamble on unknowns though and not palatable IMO. That said what I think is reasonable is to question whether the lockdown as applied was the right approach given what we know (and knew from the start) about those most at risk. It did after all singularly fail to protect some of the most vulnerable, materially increasing the death toll.
I simply wanted an answer to a question - so effective YOU are trying to attack me for asking it.... Once I get an answer I move on, otherwise I'm persistent - if debate isn't about asking question to get answers then what is it???. I ask the question because I too find it difficult to answer.
You were asking for an answer to a question that wasn't a view his posts said he was espousing. He hadn't said, screw the lives, we need the economy running. He said you can't separate the economy from health/life, which is entirely true.
The answer for me is that lockdown was (is) the least bad option.
Lock down prevented doctors being faced with the dilemma of which desperately sick people to nurse. Lock down has worked!
The triage type comment I made was simply to flag that all the comments about picking who to treat etc. is a dangerous road were either naïve or misleading. It happens all the time. You've quoted it as if I was referring to lockdown, I wasn't although I can see why given the context of the rest of the post 
Again, R, data from other countries and the rest pointed to C19 causing 1% death and rapidly (in a month or two) - and that with enough health care. Faced with the prospect of up to 350k people being very sick a month what other option but lockdown was there??? Probably none and I'm not saying lockdown as a response was wrong, just questioning whether the way it was done was right and whether the continued calls for it to be extended with no relaxing is right.
Again, where is the reasoning wrong that: c19 causes (and it might change if it become more benign but we're talking back in March here) 1% death and over a few months IF left to let rip. That maths is then straightforward, and the effect on health care systems likewise.
Same thing, questioning whether lockdown should be relaxed or should have been more targeted is not the same as saying let it rip.
(Apologies for the way I've quoted, really supposed to be working rather than posting here and I'm not good at doing quotes as you did! Hopefully it's not distorted your comments or taken them out of context!)