@Shop-et-al wrote:
Nonetheless, it is possible to say this much. Our values bring us to one too-long or two shorter questions. Do we all stay at home and wither away because only some might get this dratted disease? Or, do as many people as possible live as fully as possible while being as safe as possible while some might acquire this dratted disease?
Good questions.
First a quick correction/challenge - I think you're assuming it's "only some might get this dratted disease." Experts early on predicted the half the entire world would ultimately end up with the virus. If you're out and about - even with social distancing and mask wearing - you can still get the virus. We're seeing the cases grow throughout the U.S. right now. For ONE FULL MONTH, 1,000 have died daily in America.
By June, it's predicted 3,000 will die every day, due to relaxing restrictions. That's the math.
i.) I'm not against safely opening back up the economy. I just don't think the Trump administration has valued safety at all from day one. I'll leave it at that and won't say anymore. (One tiny final thing is that it's interesting he's disbanding the White House task force on COVID-19 and public health at a time when the virus is still going on and getting worse. That's like ordering your military general to go ahead and walk off the battlefield in the middle of a war. The GOP and Trump are now blocking Fauci and the COVID-19 task force from testifying in the House. You can ask yourself why that is and what sort of interests might be behind that.)
ii.) Opening back up won't save the economy.
It's a concept I wrote about earlier. NO ONE can really open the economy back up. Only Americans, themselves, can. If people don't feel safe, they simply won't go back to business as usual even after restrictions. You cannot force or trick people (well...maybe the latter) to go to a buffet, concert, or restaurant if they don't want to. Most Americans (per the Bloomberg quote above) worry about catching COVID-19 and most do not trust the Trump administration's info. on it:
[
www.chicagotribune.com]
I asked in a General Chat thread that if we were going to get economic pain no matter what (whether we opened or not), why not go the "protect lives" route? If we had a universal, aggressive lockdown for 60 days (only essential workers allowed out and essential tasks performed only), then we could have potentially given the virus few place to go and saved lives + had a good shot to open back the economy safely and soundly on the other side (with social distancing and other measures still in place to keep safe). Instead, many parts of the U.S. NEVER really locked down...now, we have over a million cases, case counts rising, 70,000 dead, many more hospitalized, and projected growth to 3,000 dying a day by June. Even if you open the economy now, businesses will not have anywhere near full capacity most likely.
The economy was going to be hurt one way or another. At least with the early, universal, aggressive lockdown route (where you bailout everyone's debt/bills/income for 60 days - instead of favoring the rich), we seemed to have a shot at saving lives and returning more safely to a decent economic environment. Now, we've hurt both - people's lives/health and the economy with what to show for it?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/06/2020 05:40AM by shoptastic.