Here is a paper published by the EU in 2016 . The Section about research on EMF and 5G effects on human Health starts on page 6 .
I see where you are getting the "pulse" stuff from, but this paper implying that a pulse is something more than a transient increase in amplitude, which is misleading.
Quarantine should have been for the high risk group not a blanket order. Most of this group would not have an impact on the economy if they stayed indoors.
The problem with this is that they wouldn't have been protected if they were the only ones isolating. Many elderly do not live alone and many of those that do are even more dependent on being able to go out and about for their basic needs. Lower risk groups would rapidly become infected and bring home
I disagree. In the western world, for a lot of people it's not being prepared thats going to trip them up, its a case of refusing to evolve with the world and the situation you face as it changes.
It's both, and it applies to societies as well as individuals.
What we're seeing now is the consequence of society being unprepared for what should have been a much more mild event, and now having to adapt to the changes wrought by that unpreparedness.
COVID-19 could have been stopped in it's tracks with a swifter containment response, or failing that could have been a virtual non-issue if adequate surplus capacity was worked into health services, rather than letting the norm be running near full capacity (which is most efficient in good times, but not robust). Since neither the first nor second lines of defense held up, we are down to more broad and heavy handed mitigations to messily control spread, and many people are now adapting to working from home, or discovering what it's like to be dependent on expendable sectors of business.
Common sense would say we need to stay in isolation until it is completely wiped out because if it’s apparently so virulent one case will set everything in motion again.
I don't know, my common sense says we need to stay in isolation until the rate at which increasing hospital capacity overtakes a falling infection rate, because immune individuals break links in the chain of infection. With enough dead-ends ('herd immunity'), the infection burns out.
It doesn't need to be completely wiped out for the number of new cases to be readily manageable and in a health care system that has experience with COVID-19 and surplus capacity, the mortality rate will surely be very low. The problem is we are not there yet...we do not have many proven treatment options and in hard hit areas, there isn't the capacity to treat everyone. That will change, but slowing the spread will do a lot to mitigate the damage in the meantime.
This also happens to be why the mitigation efforts most places are adopting are in place.
No, you just happen to live in a state where an option like that exists, or have personal circumstances which allow you to eschew contributing to society.
The risk for some minimum wage hospitality worker (for example) spreading the virus or falling ill and becoming a burden to an already overloaded system themselves exceeds the value of their normal contribution to society. The most economical solution for stuff like this is to pay them to stay the hell home and not make things worse, not push society to return to a semblance of normalcy before it's ready to do so.
Of course many right-leaning western governments wouldn't dream of this. Fortunately, I've never had much use for government and when my less well-off friends and family are confronted with the option of continuing to work when it's neither safe for them, nor for the rest of us, or loosing their pitiful incomes, I will insist they quit, and I will put them up for as long as required.