[teejers1]

Again, I'll mention that all economists who have sounded the alarm about an impending recession have *not* recommended easing restrictions until the curve has flattened and virus tests/vaccines are available.  A collapse of American hospitals would be a catastrophe of greater economic and moral impact.

Yeah it's bad, but it's what we have to do now since we wasted Jan/Feb while the virus swept through the nation.  This is the price of inaction.

I don't believe you know (or anyone does) whether overcrowded hospitals with bodies lying in the entryways and outside will have a greater economic impact than the destruction we're seeing now (and will continue to see with each passing week/month of shut-down).  But at least you play the card which I believe is animating the decision-makers - it's the moral thing to do.  And I understand that and am fine with it . . . certainly for now.  But you don't really believe that shut-down is "the answer" in perpetuity, do you?  Or do you?  I mean, that's the only way to ensure we don't have "overcrowded hospitals."

And I'll put out another concern:  the decision-makers are not feeling the pain that is out there.  Specifically, the governor and all politicians are continuing to go to work and collect their checks (off of taxpayers).  I wonder if their perspective would change if they were not getting paid a nickel, had to file a claim for unemployment, and were concerned about feeding/housing their kids.

P.S.  I agree with you about the initial (in)action at national level.  No clue; no plan; haphazard . . . feckless.

P.P.S.  Here's a vote for the Swedish model.  I think folks here massively underestimate the amount of self-restriction that is going to occur when/if restrictions ever go the other way.

[teejers1]

Again, I'll mention that all economists who have sounded the alarm about an impending recession have *not* recommended easing restrictions until the curve has flattened and virus tests/vaccines are available.  A collapse of American hospitals would be a catastrophe of greater economic and moral impact.

Yeah it's bad, but it's what we have to do now since we wasted Jan/Feb while the virus swept through the nation.  This is the price of inaction.

I don't believe you know (or anyone does) whether overcrowded hospitals with bodies lying in the entryways and outside will have a greater economic impact than the destruction we're seeing now (and will continue to see with each passing week/month of shut-down).  But at least you play the card which I believe is animating the decision-makers - it's the moral thing to do.  And I understand that and am fine with it . . . certainly for now.  But you don't really believe that shut-down is "the answer" in perpetuity, do you?  Or do you?  I mean, that's the only way to ensure we don't have "overcrowded hospitals."

And I'll put out another concern:  the decision-makers are not feeling the pain that is out there.  Specifically, the governor and all politicians are continuing to go to work and collect their checks (off of taxpayers).  I wonder if their perspective would change if they were not getting paid a nickel, had to file a claim for unemployment, and were concerned about feeding/housing their kids.

P.S.  I agree with you about the initial (in)action at national level.  No clue; no plan; haphazard . . . feckless.

P.P.S.  Here's a vote for the Swedish model.  I think folks here massively underestimate the amount of self-restriction that is going to occur when/if restrictions ever go the other way.