Thread by @ProfLWiley

I'll say it again. If there's a federal commitment to ramping up the "aggressive public health measures" cited here (testing, tracing, cluster busting), which other countries have used to sustain suppression post-lockdown, then a new round of tight restrictions makes sense...

But calling for "new, tighter lockdowns" with zero promise that public health infrastructure will be funded & coordinated to pick up where "lockdowns" leave off is irresponsible.

The problem in March wasn't that too many people were deemed "essential" workers. It was that we didn't use the time bought by shutting down "nonessential" business to implement the infrastructure required to sustain suppression after restrictions are eased.

In June, transmission was low enough to be manageable by the kind of ramped up public health infrastructure other countries have used to sustain suppression. Congress/the administration failed to fund/coordinate that infrastructure here.

What we learned in March/April/May is that kind of public health infrastructure doesn't magically appear when the timing is right. It requires a much bigger federal commitment than Congress has made or shows any signs of making any time soon.

Without indication that a massive ramp-up of test/trace infrastructure is on the horizon, better to focus on implementing common-sense restrictions on high-risk settings (bars, indoor dining, large gatherings) that can be sustained (with support for employees/SBOs) long-term.