[akiddoc]

For my two cents, we should reopen entirely, with the regulatory environment . . .

I fear this would come at the expense of the health care system and especially health care workers, by reigniting exponential growth in infections in many areas, overwhelming local health care systems. The New York City experience should not be repeated anywhere. There are areas that are already at full capacity right now. I'd be more with you if we had adequate numbers of trained personnel and hospital resources, and more-than-adequate PPE for them, but I don't think we do in many places. I think mass indoor gatherings, and probably mass outdoor gatherings (shoulder to shoulder) without masks should continue to be prohibited until we see what happens with resumption of other economic activity. At a minimum if enough people don't participate in an activity in accordance with regulations, the activity should be prohibited. But in general I think you're right in that we don't really know what level of effectiveness will be achieved with the regulatory environment and the range of measures people will voluntarily take; it may be turn out to be a generally acceptable accommodation. But it is unclear what will happen if it doesn't!

I'm far more optimistic than you. I think the vast majority of the public, who really don't want to get sick, are going to take the same practical steps in place now to avoid infecting themselves. I think you are going to see cloth masks be nearly universal, not because the government tells people to do so, but because sensible people want to avoid infection. 



That's the story of Georgia and Florida, I believe. Some really dumb pundits in the MSM - I mean REALLY dumb - assumed because the States were opening up everyone would rush back to stadiums sitting knee to knee, and passing beer round. But of course they didn't. Georgian or Californian, nobody wants to end up under a ventilator. So there has been a spike - maybe, hard to tell with testing so much more available - but nothing like the predicted disaster.



There's a moral there.

There are still government restrictions on businesses in Florida and and Georgia. Those states are also trying to trace all of their positive tests. Going completely hands off hasn't happened anywhere and it shouldn't. This virus is going to be around for a long time, possibly for millennia. It will definitely be a major issue for several years. We'll have to manage it with new social norms that allow human commerce and other activities to proceed. Governments will have to push those norms along. If large numbers in the manufacturing sector get sick, major economic and social disruptions will ensue. Look at the meat processing industry as an example.

https://www.aarp.org/politics-society/go...tions.html

If infecting 2-3% of the population killed 100,000, just letting it ride could cause a much larger calamity. 10-20% of the population gets infected with influenza every year even with some baseline immunity in the population. This virus is at least as infectious and no one seems to have any immunity (children might have some immunity due to frequent infections with other coronaviruses, but no one is sure yet).

[akiddoc]

For my two cents, we should reopen entirely, with the regulatory environment . . .

I fear this would come at the expense of the health care system and especially health care workers, by reigniting exponential growth in infections in many areas, overwhelming local health care systems. The New York City experience should not be repeated anywhere. There are areas that are already at full capacity right now. I'd be more with you if we had adequate numbers of trained personnel and hospital resources, and more-than-adequate PPE for them, but I don't think we do in many places. I think mass indoor gatherings, and probably mass outdoor gatherings (shoulder to shoulder) without masks should continue to be prohibited until we see what happens with resumption of other economic activity. At a minimum if enough people don't participate in an activity in accordance with regulations, the activity should be prohibited. But in general I think you're right in that we don't really know what level of effectiveness will be achieved with the regulatory environment and the range of measures people will voluntarily take; it may be turn out to be a generally acceptable accommodation. But it is unclear what will happen if it doesn't!

I'm far more optimistic than you. I think the vast majority of the public, who really don't want to get sick, are going to take the same practical steps in place now to avoid infecting themselves. I think you are going to see cloth masks be nearly universal, not because the government tells people to do so, but because sensible people want to avoid infection. 



That's the story of Georgia and Florida, I believe. Some really dumb pundits in the MSM - I mean REALLY dumb - assumed because the States were opening up everyone would rush back to stadiums sitting knee to knee, and passing beer round. But of course they didn't. Georgian or Californian, nobody wants to end up under a ventilator. So there has been a spike - maybe, hard to tell with testing so much more available - but nothing like the predicted disaster.



There's a moral there.

There are still government restrictions on businesses in Florida and and Georgia. Those states are also trying to trace all of their positive tests. Going completely hands off hasn't happened anywhere and it shouldn't. This virus is going to be around for a long time, possibly for millennia. It will definitely be a major issue for several years. We'll have to manage it with new social norms that allow human commerce and other activities to proceed. Governments will have to push those norms along. If large numbers in the manufacturing sector get sick, major economic and social disruptions will ensue. Look at the meat processing industry as an example.

https://www.aarp.org/politics-society/go...tions.html

If infecting 2-3% of the population killed 100,000, just letting it ride could cause a much larger calamity. 10-20% of the population gets infected with influenza every year even with some baseline immunity in the population. This virus is at least as infectious and no one seems to have any immunity (children might have some immunity due to frequent infections with other coronaviruses, but no one is sure yet).