Even if that were true (i.e. me having no idea of the calculation), there's a fundamental difference: I'm not advocating a societal response which results in many casualties, while all these governments (and you) are. The virus is not being imposed on society -- it is there naturally (I think!). And of course, we do know some things by now -- the disease is clearly not Ebola or the plague, wiping out people all around us. The results of the measures on the other hand are clear to see.
You are obviously not a believer in MMT - massive inflation following public spending is just a lie economists tell to us to justify no public spending. No surprise. The dangers of printing money is the biggest hoax - it's ok to print hundreds of billions of pounds in UK and give it to banks but heaven forbid we give it to people to prevent them from going into debt or losing their houses. Giving people printed money to keep them afloat is not inflationary but is a dangerous idea.
Not sure what MMT is or what I'm not obviously supposed to be a believer in. It's not I'm against printing money to help a nation. Printing money to get people to do meaningful work can be a boon for a nation. It could create hospitals, schools, good infrastructure etc. Printing money on the other hand to keep people cooped up inside their houses is quite another. I note you haven't answered what happens to poor countries who just decide to print lots of money. I suspect you know exactly what happens but decided to ignore it.
Ditto your World Bank behaviour - the obvious solution is to pay people during a pandemic - Spain has implemented Universal Basic Income. You can be absolutely sure they don't want that idea catching on anywhere. I've no doubt that the gangsters in charge want to screw us over. The world bank wanting to tie countries to loans and reset us is no different from them wanting to insist on carbon trading as a solution to global warming. Their prime imperatives are to protect capital and transfer wealth upwards. Again, nothing to do with an appropriate response.
I note again you haven't explained why the World Bank would want to impose a lockdown and social distancing. Also the banks are very happy with lockdowns and the resulting bankruptcies. They can pick up the broken pieces (real assets) for very little. As for UBI -- I think that's also on the cards for the Great Reset. I believe the idea is that they realize the financial system cannot continue to run as it has been. Instead have a carefully controlled digital world with UBI. Perhaps that's some sort of utopia for some, but I'm not very keen on that idea. I mean it's great if you're free to do as you please, but not when it's all monitored. eg your money won't appear on your balance unless you've done X,Y,Z.
Sunetra Gupta is lying - the whole Great Barrington declaration rests on an unbelievable assertion that we just need to protect vulnerable people for 3 months. It's extremely unlikely the disease is going to disappear in 3 months after everyone has had it. I can't prove it ine way or another but neither can she.
OK, so neither of you know for sure. At least with Gupta's policy, only a small fraction of people would be locked down instead of everyone (and then in a nonsensical way).