[BostonCard]

It is too early to write the final story, but I think we are now at least in the second half (although I do expect this to go overtime).  Still, I think there are takeaways that seem fairly clear:
1) Broad lockdowns are not necessary in the pandemic if people take it seriously and do a reasonable job of following social distancing/mask guidelines.
2) But, it is insanity in this country that many have correlated masks with lockdowns when in reality it is a reverse correlation.  Widespread mask wearing is lockdown avoidance behavior.

As to whether Trump deserves the accusation on covid deaths and economic damage, well, I think controlling the pandemic without lockdowns is the number one challenge for economic growth. And holy crap there is he on national television last night belittling masks.  Again.  Because somehow he thinks there is political advantage in it.  So yes he deserves blame for both.

Thoroughly agree with this.  Lockdowns should only be necessary as a last resort when you're already facing a health disaster (think Wuhan, Lombardi, Spain, the UK, New York), but under most situations should be unnecessary.  A policy that restricts large numbers of people from gathering indoors unless necessary and masking in public when possible probably gets you 90% of the way there.  Unfortunately, that means no indoor dining, no indoor bars, probably no movie theaters (other than drive ins) or other indoor recreational activities, and it means working from home if possible.  But it does allow a plethora of outdoor activities which are much lower risk, and even things like watching outdoor sporting events is probably fine with the restrictions on attendance.  For unavoidable, high-risk situations (like meat processing plants), you provide guidance to mitigate risks (mask, potentially even N95's, partitions, improved ventilation, and moving to decrease density).  To the extent you can supplement these measures with effective testing, tracking, tracing, and isolation to prevent asymptomatic spread, you can further suppress the pandemic.

As I've said many times before, this pandemic does not require that all transmission chains be terminated with a strict lockdown; it is manageable if you keep R(eff) at or below 1.  But that requires a sustained effort.

BC

[BostonCard]

It is too early to write the final story, but I think we are now at least in the second half (although I do expect this to go overtime).  Still, I think there are takeaways that seem fairly clear:
1) Broad lockdowns are not necessary in the pandemic if people take it seriously and do a reasonable job of following social distancing/mask guidelines.
2) But, it is insanity in this country that many have correlated masks with lockdowns when in reality it is a reverse correlation.  Widespread mask wearing is lockdown avoidance behavior.

As to whether Trump deserves the accusation on covid deaths and economic damage, well, I think controlling the pandemic without lockdowns is the number one challenge for economic growth. And holy crap there is he on national television last night belittling masks.  Again.  Because somehow he thinks there is political advantage in it.  So yes he deserves blame for both.

Thoroughly agree with this.  Lockdowns should only be necessary as a last resort when you're already facing a health disaster (think Wuhan, Lombardi, Spain, the UK, New York), but under most situations should be unnecessary.  A policy that restricts large numbers of people from gathering indoors unless necessary and masking in public when possible probably gets you 90% of the way there.  Unfortunately, that means no indoor dining, no indoor bars, probably no movie theaters (other than drive ins) or other indoor recreational activities, and it means working from home if possible.  But it does allow a plethora of outdoor activities which are much lower risk, and even things like watching outdoor sporting events is probably fine with the restrictions on attendance.  For unavoidable, high-risk situations (like meat processing plants), you provide guidance to mitigate risks (mask, potentially even N95's, partitions, improved ventilation, and moving to decrease density).  To the extent you can supplement these measures with effective testing, tracking, tracing, and isolation to prevent asymptomatic spread, you can further suppress the pandemic.

As I've said many times before, this pandemic does not require that all transmission chains be terminated with a strict lockdown; it is manageable if you keep R(eff) at or below 1.  But that requires a sustained effort.

BC