My understanding is that overwhelming the health care system becomes easier the more spread the decease is. The real problem will be the lag in detecting the re

My understanding is that overwhelming the health care system becomes easier the more spread the decease is. The real problem will be the lag in detecting the result of any public health measure with this virus. If only deaths can be measured the measurements will lag a few weeks potentially. With appropriate testing I guess the lag will still be a few days. Now in the first wave you only had a few starting points as there were few sick people in few clusters. Today you have sick people all around the place. If the delay of measures are delayed in the second wave as much as in the first, the second wave will be much larger and it will be far less concentrated into clusters. So this makes any policy change risky unless the measurement latency is very short. On top of this the impact of different policies is not known. So opening slowly makes it least somewhat scientific (understanding what works and what does not) Of course the lockdown has a lot of negatives as well. I don't think many people dispute that. So it's a real a trade-off. But one that is very hard to get right because of all the unknowns, measurement latency (covid cases and side effects), and general emerging complexity of the problem. On top of all this, this problem hits so many areas of public and private life. It's hard to nail down messaging to meet everybody. So bottom line is it's hard to get right, therefore easy to criticize.