Totally agree with this and think it gets to a deeper question about what the proper policy goal here is.
Is it: open up your economy as much as you can without having a NYC-style outbreak that kills thousands and melts down your hospitals ?
Is it: open up your economy as much as you can without having a NYC-style outbreak that kills thousands and melts down your hospitals ?
Or is it: open up your economy as much as you can while minimizing deaths and illness as much as you can.
Right now it seems like we're going for the former, but I would like to see us shoot for the stars and try the latter (ala Germany, SK, Taiwan, etc...)
Right now it seems like we're going for the former, but I would like to see us shoot for the stars and try the latter (ala Germany, SK, Taiwan, etc...)
My frustration lies in what seems to me a growing consensus of: "lock downs are too hard, the virus is bad but manageable so we're just gonna accept elevated risk/death/illness" as opposed to "let's beat this thing!"
I'd like to see us put in the effort, investment and planning to create the *optimal* policy, as opposed to shooting for a kind of muddling through and hoping for the best. I suspect some states will come closer to the former.
