4 ms·
You wrote, > California recognizes that economic restrictions are causing severe harm and began rolling them back today But the OP wrote, > Hopefully states
by 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.
- tomp 6y ago> the more economic damage we're likely to face over the long term, What I don’t quite understand is how people expect the economy to “just go back to normal”... like, even if you “reopen” everything, ease all restrictions, it’s not like people are goingback to living as usual.. they’re still going to keep by themselves, because that’s an individually sensible decision... are you going to attend a conference, a wedding, a dinner party / restaurant where you’ll be near 100+ people? Of course not, you’ll be making sure you stay healthy! The economic damage will happen and persist, and governments can’t just legislate against that!
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- lurquer 6y ago>are you going to attend a conference, a wedding, a dinner party / restaurant where you’ll be near 100+ people? Yes, yes, and yes. As will you.
- rumanator 6y agoIt saddens me that those who for some reasoning fall prey for this line of reasoning don't just hurt themselves in the process, and actively contribute to spread and worsen all problems to everyone they ever contact with.
- greedo 6y agoIt's the same crowd that believes that the economy would have just been fine if we had treated this like we do the flu; ignoring that 2M dead Americans has a funny effect on the economy.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y agoWe might be on the same page here, then. I agree it would be dumb to just immediately reopen all businesses with no thought about how to mitigate risks or delay the least safe ones. But I see a lot of people propose that relaxing restrictions doesn't matter, that it's just not an important priority relative to the virus, and that goes too far.