first off i dont really disagree with anything you said. it all makes sense and is very reasonable.
we are very clearly straying from a rams discussion so i dont want to go point by point. thus my main point is that when establishing public policy in response to this situation you cant just look at deaths. its part of it, a big part, but not the only part. and if we only focus on one part you miss the bigger picture.
one way to look at this is that people will unfortunately die regardless of what we do or dont do. the only question is how many. So if you want to assume more people would die if you reduce social distancing restrictions (which may or may not be true, its difficult to tell just yet) , how many additional deaths is it worth to "secure" (i use that term loosely) the benefits of economic and social stability? i realize that question may make some people a little squeamish and for some maybe that answer is 0 but if thats your answer you will need to be able to live the consequences whatever those may be. the bottom line is that there are no easy answers, no matter how many times people say its "common sense". theres nothing common about it.
Quote
ramBRO
Quote
PHDram
youre correct. wearing a mask in public may be annoying but not terribly intrusive. further i understand that the restrictions differ from state to state but in md and many other states we are under a shelter at home order. people cant go to work, restaurant, bars, sporting events (obviously) and a whole host of other things including something as simple as a social gathering with friends.. how long can social beings sustain those restrictions? how long can an economy sustain that loss in revenue? what is the impact of social isolation and economic uncertainty on the mental health and behavior of individuals? depression? suicide? crime? domestic violence? drug use? I get that most people are only concerned about death from the virus. its natural to think in such terms. but solution also has costs that need to be added to the public policy equation; and at some point the effect of the solution is likely to outweigh the benefit. im not sure when that is, but my point is that the problem is more complicated than simply focusing on the death rate.
True. But with 80K Americans
actually dead (and counting), you can't fault someone for placing an emphasis on that over other aspects (such as suicides, drug use, social isolation, depression, etc.) which have yet to be quantified
(and may never be).With that said, though...you're right in that these are things that we need to be concerned about. However, many of the issues that you've touched upon will be mitigated as more and mores states/counties/cities begin to to ease restrictions (except for the death rates - with the easing of restrictions, there will continue to be deaths connected to the virus).
I can understand the frustration if you're located in a jurisdiction (or have a business) that may still be under a lockdown order. But trust me...the government/public health officials knew from the beginning that lockdowns wouldn't be sustainable (for many of the same reasons you mentioned) for a long period of time. They were just looking to buy themselves some time to develop a strategy to combat the virus - which brings me to another point with respect to your concerns.
I believe that the citizens of our country have been done an immense disservice by the response of our federal leaders who have put out conflicting (and sometimes harmful) messages and have yet to develop any type of coherent strategy to combat the virus
which is still out there. As a result, it's made it extremely difficult for the country to move together (frustrated or not) in one direction to get to our objective sooner rather than later.
