Economic losses can't be equated to human life, and it's a fool's errand to do so. We flatten to reduce demand on health care. We do so because it's the compassionate thing to do, because human life matters more than GDP figures. Quarantining won't kill people. There will be economic consequences, but quarantine won't leave you with permanent lung damage, either.
Look at how our country's national security policies were forever changed after 3,000 deaths on September 11th. This disease has the ability to take away two magnitudes more people -- hundreds of thousands. We shouldn't be surprised if profound policy changes emerge as a response to pandemic.
We instead could compare the number of deaths if we quarantine, vs if we don't, and then choose the path with the least number of deaths.
If for example, we could no longer produce food due to quarantining (not the case, as essential industries are still operating-- but imagine for some reason, we did shut down food production), and 100 million would die vs 200,000-- clearly the better option would be to not quarantine.
So, I don't know if this a debate of semantics, but "economic losses" that would turn into actual loss of human life (e.g., due to starvation) are being accounted for.
Look at how our country's national security policies were forever changed after 3,000 deaths on September 11th. This disease has the ability to take away two magnitudes more people -- hundreds of thousands. We shouldn't be surprised if profound policy changes emerge as a response to pandemic.