[lex24]

From the outset, there has been differences in viewpoints of how best to deal with this.  How to balance the health aspects with the economy.  I bristle then and now when it’s framed (as it often is) as “those that want to save lives” versus those that are simply selfish. ... Not to mention the potential long term economic impact.  I don’t know what the right “balance” was, but it’s not as simplistic as it was often laid out. 

I agree. And looking back to just 2-3 months ago, the health vs. economy framing (or lives vs. jobs) was wrong. Shutting down better and longer, and being more stringent and better at masks, testing, and tracing, would have been better for both jobs and health. Now, as our cases climb geometrically, this new surge will almost certainly exacerbate the downturn in the US. Meanwhile, most if not all other developed nations (Canada, Australia, most of Europe, Japan, Singapore, New Zealand, etc.) have gained control and will return to normal way before we will. Yeah, it's hindsight; but damn!

Shutting down “better” means exactly what?  As for longer - where?  And how much longer?  

Masks, testing, tracing are different issues. None of those are synonymous with shutdown.

I dunno ... does specifying "better and longer" matter that much, in this context? Can you just settle for what you wrote: "I don’t know what the right 'balance' was, but it’s not as simplistic as it was often laid out" and me agreeing with you?

Yes, I can handle that. :). Didn’t mean to pick nits.  But maybe that was what I did.  If so, my bad.

[lex24]

From the outset, there has been differences in viewpoints of how best to deal with this.  How to balance the health aspects with the economy.  I bristle then and now when it’s framed (as it often is) as “those that want to save lives” versus those that are simply selfish. ... Not to mention the potential long term economic impact.  I don’t know what the right “balance” was, but it’s not as simplistic as it was often laid out. 

I agree. And looking back to just 2-3 months ago, the health vs. economy framing (or lives vs. jobs) was wrong. Shutting down better and longer, and being more stringent and better at masks, testing, and tracing, would have been better for both jobs and health. Now, as our cases climb geometrically, this new surge will almost certainly exacerbate the downturn in the US. Meanwhile, most if not all other developed nations (Canada, Australia, most of Europe, Japan, Singapore, New Zealand, etc.) have gained control and will return to normal way before we will. Yeah, it's hindsight; but damn!

Shutting down “better” means exactly what?  As for longer - where?  And how much longer?  

Masks, testing, tracing are different issues. None of those are synonymous with shutdown.

I dunno ... does specifying "better and longer" matter that much, in this context? Can you just settle for what you wrote: "I don’t know what the right 'balance' was, but it’s not as simplistic as it was often laid out" and me agreeing with you?

Yes, I can handle that. :). Didn’t mean to pick nits.  But maybe that was what I did.  If so, my bad.