But they did not spend 20% of GDP on behalf of 2000 deaths ... but on behalf of the many other thousands they saved the lives of. This is the same as saying millions are spent on the deaths caused by cancer ... again, it is spent to prevent the deaths of many others.
well, you cannot prove what did not happen. the idea that thousands were saved is just a guess. perhaps no one was saved. but say ten thousand were saved. then the phils has spent 20 percent of its economy on behalf of 12,000 deaths. it still makes no sense at all, especially when the vast majority appear to be older people with co morbidities (in all countries).
Well, not a guess (the fact that some would be saved) but a process of rational thinking. There would be no point spending millions on cancer treatments, as an example, if there was no evidence that treatment prevents suffering and possible death. Similarly for a virus disease - the fact that it is more acute and easily spread makes it far more imperative to treat it by ALL reasonable means possible. You note I used the word "reasonable" so I am not talking about shutting down economies where the risk is low or separating bike riders with plastic - but primarily the use of face masks, other PPE, social distancing, track and tracing and a few other things. My 'evidence', which forms part of my rational thinking (not 'guessing') is two-fold: 1. The experience of treating other contagious diseases and the knowledge of how they spread - the evidence for Covid-19's spread is now overwhelming. 2. The fact that countries which did the things I listed above as 'reasonable' (I especially cite Taiwan) have had very low cases/deaths. So doing reasonable things = lower cases, lower death rates, lower educational and business disruption; doing nothing or very little or doing something but the wrong things (e.g Brazil) = huge number of cases and higher death rates. Please cite your evidence for doing nothing and not overwhelming hospitals and killing people.