4 ms·

"I don't want to be hurt" was an option that was swept off the table the moment we went into this disaster with a dysfunctional federal government. Our choices

"I don't want to be hurt" was an option that was swept off the table the moment we went into this disaster with a dysfunctional federal government. Our choices since then have been "economic hardship and misery" or "economic hardship and misery with a spicy side dish of death and suffering". Covid19 has been the leading cause of death in America for a month now [1]. Some time tomorrow, it will have killed a confirmed 80,000 Americans [2] and America has consistently had 1/3rd of the world's critically-ill cases for weeks [ibid]. There is no way we are going to get out of this with less than 100,000 dead. Amazingly, the same country that had endless investigations into the deaths of two people in Benghazi and went to war over the deaths of 3,000 Americans on September 11, 2001 -- subsequently spending $6.4 trillion in war operations [3] -- is finding 100,000 dead to be "pretty good", and the economic cost of mitigating further death to be just a little bit too expensive. As usual, some of this is explained by political misinformation campaigns that too many people are falling for [4][5][6][7], but still, the same talking points get repeated into forums like this one, even though most Americans would prefer economic pain over a higher death toll for now [8][9][10]. I'm just gobsmacked that the disinformation is taking root so easily, because arguing that can really trivially be reduced to, "I don't think enough people are dying to justify the measures meant to prevent people from dying." Hopefully states like California that are following more conservative, evidence-based approaches to relaxing restrictions, will relieve some of the tension. [1]: https://thehill.com/homenews/news/492053-coronavirus-now-leading-cause-of-death-in-us https://thehill.com/homenews/news/492053-coronavirus-now-lea... [2]: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/ https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/ [3]: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/20/us-spent-6point4-trillion-on-middle-east-wars-since-2001-study.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/20/us-spent-6point4-trillion-on... [4]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/inside-the-conservative-networks-backing-anti-quarantine-protests/2020/04/22/da75c81e-83fe-11ea-a3eb-e9fc93160703_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/inside-the-conservat... [5]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/04/19/pro-gun-activists-using-facebook-groups-push-anti-quarantine-protests/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/04/19/pro-gun... [6]: https://www.vox.com/2020/4/19/21225195/stay-at-home-protests-trump-tea-party-reelection https://www.vox.com/2020/4/19/21225195/stay-at-home-protests... [7]: https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/2020/04/22/iowa-family-behind-reopen-covid-19-protests-popping-up-across-country/3005696001/ https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/2020/0... [8]: https://www.newsweek.com/americans-coronavirus-restrictions-lifted-too-quickly-poll-1502743 https://www.newsweek.com/americans-coronavirus-restrictions-... [9]: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/08/us/politics/coronavirus-reopening-polls.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/08/us/politics/coronavirus-r... [10]: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/most-americans-think-its-too-soon-to-return-to-what-life-was-like-pre-pandemic/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/most-americans-think-it...

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
I hate to reply so pithily to your well-researched comment, but your basic premise seems to be false here. California recognizes that economic restrictions are causing severe harm and began rolling them back today.
- cozzyd 6y ago
  The key is when California first acted, I think, rather then when it started rolling back.
- chipotle_coyote 6y ago
  You wrote, > California recognizes that economic restrictions are causing severe harm and began rolling them back today But the OP wrote, > Hopefully states like California that are following more conservative, evidence-based approaches to relaxing restrictions, will relieve some of the tension. You are both correct: California is rolling back economic restrictions, but they are following a conservative, evidence-based approach to relaxing them. The OP's basic premise, however, is not at all false, and I sincerely hope you don't have the impression that the state is just throwing a switch and going back to "normal." It's not. Or I should say, we're not. I don't know where you're located, but I'm in California -- the Bay Area, specifically. We don't even have official guidance on how restaurants are going to re-open yet, an the California Restaurant Association -- the business group that represents restaurants, and clearly has an economic motivation to get back to business -- has actively lobbied for the re-opening of their member businesses to happen slowly and very carefully. I would like nothing more than to be able to start going back to my favorite restaurants and bars. But the reality is that for the last month, the daily number of new Covid-19 cases and of deaths hasn't been materially dropping in the US in the way it has in countries like the UK, Italy, and Germany, which strongly suggests that our collective behavior throughout April remained too relaxed in most states. The paradox of this pandemic is that the looser the restrictions we place on ourselves are, the more economic damage we're likely to face over the long term, not less, because we'll start cycling through repeated outbreaks, being forced to close businesses, districts, and even regions ad hoc, and running a much greater risk of overwhelming hospitals with bursts of new cases virtually all at once in stricken locales.

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago

I hate to reply so pithily to your well-researched comment, but your basic premise seems to be false here. California recognizes that economic restrictions are causing severe harm and began rolling them back today.

cozzyd 6y ago
The key is when California first acted, I think, rather then when it started rolling back.
chipotle_coyote 6y ago
You wrote, > California recognizes that economic restrictions are causing severe harm and began rolling them back today But the OP wrote, > Hopefully states like California that are following more conservative, evidence-based approaches to relaxing restrictions, will relieve some of the tension. You are both correct: California is rolling back economic restrictions, but they are following a conservative, evidence-based approach to relaxing them. The OP's basic premise, however, is not at all false, and I sincerely hope you don't have the impression that the state is just throwing a switch and going back to "normal." It's not. Or I should say, we're not. I don't know where you're located, but I'm in California -- the Bay Area, specifically. We don't even have official guidance on how restaurants are going to re-open yet, an the California Restaurant Association -- the business group that represents restaurants, and clearly has an economic motivation to get back to business -- has actively lobbied for the re-opening of their member businesses to happen slowly and very carefully. I would like nothing more than to be able to start going back to my favorite restaurants and bars. But the reality is that for the last month, the daily number of new Covid-19 cases and of deaths hasn't been materially dropping in the US in the way it has in countries like the UK, Italy, and Germany, which strongly suggests that our collective behavior throughout April remained too relaxed in most states. The paradox of this pandemic is that the looser the restrictions we place on ourselves are, the more economic damage we're likely to face over the long term, not less, because we'll start cycling through repeated outbreaks, being forced to close businesses, districts, and even regions ad hoc, and running a much greater risk of overwhelming hospitals with bursts of new cases virtually all at once in stricken locales.