[lex24]

Getting through the next couple weeks seems key to me. ...

I do not think it’s possible to close things back down completely again.  Economically, politically or socially.  It could  lead to the economy completely collapsing. Which has enormous impacts oh health etc world wide. As does the mental health aspect (and other secondary health issues - such as delayed diagnosis) 

The critical time is more than the next couple weeks!!   Or, maybe, you meant it is the next 2 weeks, every week.

I didn't think it was possible to do the Shelter-in-place in the first place.  The US political, social, and news machines are built on money.  How could the well-being of the people come first?   Like some have said about banks, the economy was too big to fail, so we have to support it.   

But, the Bay Area led the way as it was one of the first to be hit.  It was possible only because of the unfortunate example of Italy.  It withstood complaints by some because of the unfortunate example of NYC.

Texas and Florida are starting to lead the way on a second round of closures.  But, they were only looking 2 weeks out too, which is a too-weak approach for the life cycle of COVID-19.

The well-being of people obviously comes first.  But the equation in figuring out the right formula for protecting that well being is not as simplistic as “SIP good” “opening up - bad”.  From an economic standpoint people with money are the ones that can shelter in place the easiest and the longest. Particular people with money who are either retired or can work from home. 

Those people who aren’t quite that fortunate sufferred much heavier consequences as a result of the shelter in place and the economy shutting down. And if it happens again, the impact on them will be even worse. For them “economic well-being“ wont be how well their 401(k) is doing.  It will be whether they can put food on the table.   

Socially - it’s not just getting together with the buddies for brews to watch the ball game. Human beings are social animals that need social interaction. The mental health consequences of the virus and the shelter in place were very very negative. As shown by the fact that there was a significant uptick in calls to suicide prevention centers etc. I believe that’s particularly true for people who live alone. And also for those with economic issues. 

 And then there is the impact on education. Kids having to school from home over a long period of time will, in my opinion, be disastrous.  Those kids who are fortunate enough to have parents that value education and the economic wherewithal to have the tools available to them will do just fine. On the other hand, those kids that do not live in such households will suffer. Tremendously. Thus the education gap we already have grows. Significantly. Which is why I think it’s very important to get kids back to school. Figure out a way to do it safely. Or as safely as possible.

 So the narrative that those who support the shelter in place are selfless folks that are all about “saving lives”; while those who want to see the economy moving forward are a bunch of self-centered cretins that don’t care if people die is not just overly simplistic, it’s a false narrative. 

 Figuring out how to manage this pandemic while keeping portions of the economy going as much as possible is a tricky balancing test. I get that.  But shutting things down as we did in March is not the answer.

[lex24]

Getting through the next couple weeks seems key to me. ...

I do not think it’s possible to close things back down completely again.  Economically, politically or socially.  It could  lead to the economy completely collapsing. Which has enormous impacts oh health etc world wide. As does the mental health aspect (and other secondary health issues - such as delayed diagnosis) 

The critical time is more than the next couple weeks!!   Or, maybe, you meant it is the next 2 weeks, every week.

I didn't think it was possible to do the Shelter-in-place in the first place.  The US political, social, and news machines are built on money.  How could the well-being of the people come first?   Like some have said about banks, the economy was too big to fail, so we have to support it.   

But, the Bay Area led the way as it was one of the first to be hit.  It was possible only because of the unfortunate example of Italy.  It withstood complaints by some because of the unfortunate example of NYC.

Texas and Florida are starting to lead the way on a second round of closures.  But, they were only looking 2 weeks out too, which is a too-weak approach for the life cycle of COVID-19.

The well-being of people obviously comes first.  But the equation in figuring out the right formula for protecting that well being is not as simplistic as “SIP good” “opening up - bad”.  From an economic standpoint people with money are the ones that can shelter in place the easiest and the longest. Particular people with money who are either retired or can work from home. 

Those people who aren’t quite that fortunate sufferred much heavier consequences as a result of the shelter in place and the economy shutting down. And if it happens again, the impact on them will be even worse. For them “economic well-being“ wont be how well their 401(k) is doing.  It will be whether they can put food on the table.   

Socially - it’s not just getting together with the buddies for brews to watch the ball game. Human beings are social animals that need social interaction. The mental health consequences of the virus and the shelter in place were very very negative. As shown by the fact that there was a significant uptick in calls to suicide prevention centers etc. I believe that’s particularly true for people who live alone. And also for those with economic issues. 

 And then there is the impact on education. Kids having to school from home over a long period of time will, in my opinion, be disastrous.  Those kids who are fortunate enough to have parents that value education and the economic wherewithal to have the tools available to them will do just fine. On the other hand, those kids that do not live in such households will suffer. Tremendously. Thus the education gap we already have grows. Significantly. Which is why I think it’s very important to get kids back to school. Figure out a way to do it safely. Or as safely as possible.

 So the narrative that those who support the shelter in place are selfless folks that are all about “saving lives”; while those who want to see the economy moving forward are a bunch of self-centered cretins that don’t care if people die is not just overly simplistic, it’s a false narrative. 

 Figuring out how to manage this pandemic while keeping portions of the economy going as much as possible is a tricky balancing test. I get that.  But shutting things down as we did in March is not the answer.