There are three basic positions people are taking: 1. "It's just a bad flu": We never should have shut down in the first place. Vulnerable people can self-quar

There are three basic positions people are taking: 1. "It's just a bad flu": We never should have shut down in the first place. Vulnerable people can self-quarantine, everybody else should mostly carry on as normal. 2. "Lives are precious": We have to do everything we can to protect people, and that means shutting down until we have a vaccine or have few enough cases so we can effectively test-and-trace. Any economic damage is irrelevant compared to people's lives. 3. "Flatten the curve": Prevent hospitals from being overwhelmed and causing people to die who otherwise could have been saved. But acknowledge that most people are going to get it sooner or later, and the economic and psychological harm of lockdowns are very high, so we should consider the costs and benefits of specific restrictions and reopen in a controlled manner. (As you can probably tell, this is my position). A month ago, almost everyone in the third group supported the lockdowns, because it looked like there was a real possibility that hospital capacity could be exceeded. But that didn't happen even with effectively uncontrolled spread in the densest city in the US, and is very unlikely to happen in the future because people aren't going to be rushing out to raves even if all restrictions were lifted. So we're starting to see conflicts between the second and third groups, and that's only going to increase.