The official data suggest that the virus is about as contagious as influenza (R0 ≈ 3), and that it has a slightly higher mortality rate, but this is particularly true for very old (75+) or (very) sick people (diabetics hypertension, etc.).
Since, in contrast to influenza, the risk group cannot be vaccinated, there is a very high probability that the risk group will have to be admitted to intensive care in case of infection. This makes it different from the flu, where most of the risk group could not be infected at all, because of the vaccination.
Furthermore, the property of symptom-free spreading ensures that the risk group is more likely to be infected.
If the virus is not stopped, and R0 remains at 3, the cases double every few days.
It is easy to calculate when all ICU beds would be occupied, even considering only the risk group. The interventions of the world governments are supposed to push the R0 value artificially to < 1.
The number of active cases requiring intensive care will in any case reach a value that is > ICU places at some point when if nothing would be done at all and R0 remains high. Then the problems arise, then the danger of the virus becomes real. Doctors have to start to choose who can go to the intensive care unit and who cannot (like in Wuhan and Italy).
Just imagine what that would mean to a nation.
Of course, most of those who come to the intensive care unit and die are people who would have died this year anyway (or during the next major health emergency).
So the virus is not dangerous for the normal citizen (as far as can be judged so far), but the intensive care units would still be occupied at some point. And now imagine you have a serious car accident, your appendix is bursting, or you have another emergency, or just a serious case of Covid. "I'm sorry, we can't treat you with any of the resources available to us in the ICU, because it is full," this is the worst case what people might hear then.
Sure, we could just leave the old and sick to die at home. But that is not only against the hipcratic oath, but also against the ethical and moral foundations of our civilization.
Just imagine what that would mean to a nation.
The danger that comes from Corona is real, but it doesn't affect us (only those who will soon be dead anyway (I am intentionally provocative)), but mainly politics. It is a virus that threatens democracy because it forces governments to take tough measures. It damages the economy and thus the quality of life of every single citizen. It is being exploited from all sides to consolidate power, or to destroy it, or to make the wet dream of some "world-improvers" come true (Hello Bill Gates, just because you chip dogs, you don't have to chip people). The danger is that temporary increases in power will become permanent and surveillance technologies will be widely used, even in the post-crisis period.
We don't have many options. We could quickly strive for herd immunity, by sacrificing the old and weak (but they would also not be allowed to go to the intensive care unit, in order to keep the health system running in its usual way). We could risk riots, violence, human tragedy and suffering.
Or we could try to push the R0 value down to < 1 until everything is over by itself, or until a vaccine, or preferably a drug, is developed. In doing so, we also risk riots, violence, human tragedy and suffering.
But in the first case we lose human dignity and a large part of our achievements in civilization
In the second case we all have to behave in a very civilized way to preserve dignity. Unfortunately there is no middle way. (I do not believe that only the risk group could or should be separated from everyday life for a long time.)
I could of course also assume that the numbers are faked, R0 is smaller than claimed, nobody develops pneumonia and the disease is completely harmless to everyone.
But why should I?
Obviously the numbers are not quite accurate and measurements are poor. But these data nevertheless provide sufficient indications of what we are facing.
I could of course also assume that vaccinations are harmful, do nothing and poison us.
But why should I do that?
Of course nobody wants to have a little tested vaccine and we should never be forced to take it. But history provides dozens of proofs that vaccines are not total nonsense.
I could also assume that the virus is a planned bioweapon attack to limit our human rights and/or to create a technocratic communism.
But why would I do that?
Of course this is theoretically possible, but does it really change the possibilities we have now?
Needless to say one can ask whether the lockdown was justified in its entirety, or whether it would have been sufficient to develop partial measures. That is what was done at the beginning.There were only recommendations that didn't work, so with the lockdown you put on the full brake and slowly release the pressure step by step, always with the R0 value in your view.
Flatten the curve or kill the weak.
I think the lockdown is justified, but it should be lifted as soon as possible.