[Genuine Realist]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/covid-lockd...1598281419

Unfortunately, it is behind a paywall (I think), but excerpting some interesting facts:



It's clear that opening bars was a colossal mistake given their effect on transmission above.  Religious services are surprisingly ok (though there is that wedding in Maine that got 50+ patients infected and at least one person dead).  Given their importance, we should invest more in finding a way to reduce transmission in food processing (maybe requiring N95 masks, for example).  Schools and universities may be ok. As the article notes,  

If schools don’t reopen until next January, McKinsey & Co. estimates, low-income children will have lost a year of education, which it says translates into 4% lower lifetime earnings.

Universal masking would be a of immense proportions benefit: "Goldman Sachs Group Inc. estimates a universal mask mandate in the U.S. could now save 5% of gross domestic product by substituting for more onerous lockdowns."  The Economist, in a separate article, notes that a single American wearing a mask for a day can help avoid a fall in GDP of $56.14 (I think it is base don the same research from Goldman).

Cheap testing could help too: "Some epidemiologists and economists argue ramped-up testing could enable the economy to reopen safely without a vaccine. Mr. Romer estimates the U.S. could restore $1,000 in economic activity for every $10 spent on tests."  Thus, it is particularly galling that we still don't have adequate testing.

Compared to April, “We know so much more.”

BC

I think it is important to note here how closely interwoven the social fabric is. I have the sense, as yet unquantifiable, that the complete lockdown of March to May was massive overkill; that we could have realized pretty much the same results with much less drastic measures, e.g., the social distancing that is becoming common practice. My belief is that the Great Beast shares that intuition - and, as a result, there is an understandable cynicism about the much less drastic and more well grounded measures on which we now insist, e.g., masks.

Most of the persons posting on this forum make their living in a manner that was not effected by the lockdown, medical practitioners, tech workers who can stay at home, pensioners (yours truly). For us, the lockdown was a massive inconvenience, but not fatal. For fellow citizens who made their living in ways that were directly impacted (your brother), philosophical acceptance is a lot harder to come by. If you had your living wiped out, your homeownership endangered, your children's education imperiled, learning that complete lockdown was not completely necessary isn't something you just shrug off. It's infuriating.

That fury shows up as a fully understandable cynicism about the protocols now being urged. IF you were wrong then, what makes you think you're right now?  There's plenty of reason to blame Trump, and rightly so. But to the extent Fauci and others have lost the confidence of the public, they do share in that blame. They were cheerfully willing to inflict quite a lot more pain than might have been necessary. Mick and others wondered at the time. You pay for mistakes like that.

[Genuine Realist]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/covid-lockd...1598281419

Unfortunately, it is behind a paywall (I think), but excerpting some interesting facts:



It's clear that opening bars was a colossal mistake given their effect on transmission above.  Religious services are surprisingly ok (though there is that wedding in Maine that got 50+ patients infected and at least one person dead).  Given their importance, we should invest more in finding a way to reduce transmission in food processing (maybe requiring N95 masks, for example).  Schools and universities may be ok. As the article notes,  

If schools don’t reopen until next January, McKinsey & Co. estimates, low-income children will have lost a year of education, which it says translates into 4% lower lifetime earnings.

Universal masking would be a of immense proportions benefit: "Goldman Sachs Group Inc. estimates a universal mask mandate in the U.S. could now save 5% of gross domestic product by substituting for more onerous lockdowns."  The Economist, in a separate article, notes that a single American wearing a mask for a day can help avoid a fall in GDP of $56.14 (I think it is base don the same research from Goldman).

Cheap testing could help too: "Some epidemiologists and economists argue ramped-up testing could enable the economy to reopen safely without a vaccine. Mr. Romer estimates the U.S. could restore $1,000 in economic activity for every $10 spent on tests."  Thus, it is particularly galling that we still don't have adequate testing.

Compared to April, “We know so much more.”

BC

I think it is important to note here how closely interwoven the social fabric is. I have the sense, as yet unquantifiable, that the complete lockdown of March to May was massive overkill; that we could have realized pretty much the same results with much less drastic measures, e.g., the social distancing that is becoming common practice. My belief is that the Great Beast shares that intuition - and, as a result, there is an understandable cynicism about the much less drastic and more well grounded measures on which we now insist, e.g., masks.

Most of the persons posting on this forum make their living in a manner that was not effected by the lockdown, medical practitioners, tech workers who can stay at home, pensioners (yours truly). For us, the lockdown was a massive inconvenience, but not fatal. For fellow citizens who made their living in ways that were directly impacted (your brother), philosophical acceptance is a lot harder to come by. If you had your living wiped out, your homeownership endangered, your children's education imperiled, learning that complete lockdown was not completely necessary isn't something you just shrug off. It's infuriating.

That fury shows up as a fully understandable cynicism about the protocols now being urged. IF you were wrong then, what makes you think you're right now?  There's plenty of reason to blame Trump, and rightly so. But to the extent Fauci and others have lost the confidence of the public, they do share in that blame. They were cheerfully willing to inflict quite a lot more pain than might have been necessary. Mick and others wondered at the time. You pay for mistakes like that.