I’m not sure what the appeal is here? We know what kind of responses are effective and limit economic damage and death (Taiwan, South Korea, and Vietnam) and t

I’m not sure what the appeal is here? We know what kind of responses are effective and limit economic damage and death (Taiwan, South Korea, and Vietnam) and those that do not (the US, Sweden, and Brazil). Again, the economic impact and failure to confront the disease are inextricably linked. If you’re argument is that “if we’re already doing poorly, why do anything?” then the answer is the depth of how poorly we’ll do depends on what steps we take to mitigate the damage, even assuming we’re already on a bad path. It’s the difference between causing hundreds of thousands of deaths because of our screw up vs millions. All of this bad response spectrum will also have varying degrees of terrible knock-on effects, but those also exist because of the failure to intervene early and effectively, and put the US on a good path.