Friedersdorf has a number of quotes concerning the impact of a long term shutdown (and/or recession). That doesn’t seem like the same thing as being a shutdown

Friedersdorf has a number of quotes concerning the impact of a long term shutdown (and/or recession). That doesn’t seem like the same thing as being a shutdown skeptic. Part of the point of the safer at home orders is to buy time, not only to avoid oversubscription of hospitals but also for government to ramp up testing, protocols, contact tracing, and so on. Look at South Korea for how that can work. Unfortunately the federal government has squandered the opportunity to plan, prepare, and implement at every step along the way. At the same time, the bulk of the push to open comes not from reasoned argument, but special interests. The protesters seen at state capitols are victims of fake news, astroturfing organizers, and disinformation campaigns. That Friedersdorf doesn’t discuss those dynamics—at all—makes me lose a lot of respect for him. It’s just lazy both-sides journalism, where a contrarian viewpoint is taken up with very little justification, examination of the facts, or assignment of responsibility to important actors. Very disappointing to read this in The Atlantic considering so much of its coverage -has- been so good.