[BostonCard]

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.

Teejers, this article raises many of the same issues you did.

https://www.economist.com/briefing/2020/...akers-face

No conclusions, but this is the rough outline of what you are likely to see:

This does not mean that countries have to continue in lockdown until there is a vaccine. It means that when they relax constraints, they must have a plan. The rudiments of such a plan would be to ease the pressure step by step, not all at once, and to put in place a programme for picking up new cases and people who have been in contact with them as quickly as possible. How countries trace cases will depend, in part, on how low they were able to get the level of the virus in the population and how able, or inclined, they are to erode their citizens’ privacy. How they relax constraints will depend to some extent on modelling.

My issue is that I haven't seen much in the way of planning suggesting that we will be able to carry out this latter, more crucial step.  Now, to be fair, minds should be concentrated right now on how to deal with the immediate crisis in front of us, and hopefully, behind the scenes, the right people are thinking about how to deal with the aftermath.  On the other hand, crappy planning got us into this situation to begin with, and I can see a situation where the worst of the crisis is over, and there is a rush to pull the restrictions, only for a second wave to come around.  That being said, even if some restrictions are lifted, I doubt we go back to the status quo ante coronavirus for a long time.  The highest risk events will continue to be restricted for a while, even if some activities are removed from the restriction.

BC

[BostonCard]

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.

Teejers, this article raises many of the same issues you did.

https://www.economist.com/briefing/2020/...akers-face

No conclusions, but this is the rough outline of what you are likely to see:

This does not mean that countries have to continue in lockdown until there is a vaccine. It means that when they relax constraints, they must have a plan. The rudiments of such a plan would be to ease the pressure step by step, not all at once, and to put in place a programme for picking up new cases and people who have been in contact with them as quickly as possible. How countries trace cases will depend, in part, on how low they were able to get the level of the virus in the population and how able, or inclined, they are to erode their citizens’ privacy. How they relax constraints will depend to some extent on modelling.

My issue is that I haven't seen much in the way of planning suggesting that we will be able to carry out this latter, more crucial step.  Now, to be fair, minds should be concentrated right now on how to deal with the immediate crisis in front of us, and hopefully, behind the scenes, the right people are thinking about how to deal with the aftermath.  On the other hand, crappy planning got us into this situation to begin with, and I can see a situation where the worst of the crisis is over, and there is a rush to pull the restrictions, only for a second wave to come around.  That being said, even if some restrictions are lifted, I doubt we go back to the status quo ante coronavirus for a long time.  The highest risk events will continue to be restricted for a while, even if some activities are removed from the restriction.

BC