Quote:
Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins
The public health stance is to wait until you have two consecutive weeks of declining percent-positive cases as a percentage of overall testing.
With that said, and to play Devil's Advocate, which is worse?
Most models that I've seen have shown that if New York had enacted measures two weeks earlier, their deaths would be between 50-80% lower.
Now, you can't get those two weeks back, but if you wait an extra two weeks is there any data that suggests that X number of businesses are more likely to fail over waiting for that period compared to opening now?
Also while you can't resurrect the dead, there does remain a possibility that jobs lost are not lost forever. So when talking about job losses, shouldn't we also consider how many of those jobs are gone forever vs. displaced for a while vs. gone to be replaced by a shittier job? There are degrees to this. The small business owner that is forced into bankruptcy and the single mom trying to feed her kids that gets laid off is hurt far more than the part time server who loses their college drinking money.
|
Jobs are lost forever... Seriously, you think we can keep printing stimulus money... We flattened the curve way better than the models showed, we were told hospitals would be overrun and folks would die without ventilators... We did it. Now we move forward with policy that protects the most vulnerable, per the guidelines. However, some states are deciding to stay shut down. California is closing all their beaches starting May 1st. Does this make sense? Is the public going to be more responsible and follow social distancing if the guidelines are sensible or non-sensible.