Apropos of this tweet, there is at the very least a tension between two commonly held beliefs: That opening the economy is quickly going to get us back to where we were in late February and that opening the economy is pointless because everyone will stay home. 1/
You can resolve this tension by suggesting "well there will be enough people to spread the virus widely but not enough to stop the recession." I suppose, but that really requires a level of predictive precision that I'm pretty sure none of us really possess, even "experts." 2/
I mean, is 1/4 of people going out enough to cause massive spread? 1/8? 1/2? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ As to the second half, you won't stave off a recession with that, but you might avoid a depression, and you'll almost certainly keep some companies in business on the margins. 3/
In the face of that uncertainty, you might invoke the precautionary principle and say "well, IDK, better safe than sorry." Which is fine! But we should be honest about that, instead of pretending we have specific knowledge about the likely effects of gradual reopenings. 4/
As a final thought, we should also be honest with ourselves that we have *always* been invoking the precautionary principle here, esp outside NYC. 5/
I won't rehash the fates of the various models that had been brandished, but suffice it to say, we didn't have a great understanding about how this thing was going to go. 6/
Again, invoking the precautionary principle is fine/defensible/probably justified in this instance! But it isn't the same thing as "following science," regardless of how smug the latter term allows you to feel.
