Let's assume for now that you are correct, economy-first is best. Then, has the Federal government pursued the optimal course of action to make economy-first pr

Let's assume for now that you are correct, economy-first is best. Then, has the Federal government pursued the optimal course of action to make economy-first practical and successful? If not, then why not? And also, if not, then is it possible that given the lack of a solid comprehensive plan from the Feds, the r-flattening strategy has been left as unfortunately the most reasonable course of action? On the other hand, if the Federal government has properly laid out the optimal pro economy-first course of action, or close enough to it, then how is it that we are not implementing it, at least in parts of the country? The US has 50 states, many which are dominated by conservatives who like the President, are not broadly in favor of lockdowns. Why haven't those states insisted upon going full steam ahead with economy first, and proving the efficacy of that choice? Why do even conservative, business-friendly, Trump-loyal states keep backtracking and implementing partial lockdowns if they are such a ruinously counterproductive idea? My own opinion is that the Feds have failed at every level, leaving the states with no choice but to flounder through this pandemic with only bad options. Had we taken comprehensive nationwide steps to stop the spread of the virus, especially at the early stages, shutdowns may have been unnecessary or greatly lessened in severity. And had we taken more wholehearted steps to mitigate the economic effects of the shutdowns, we would be in a much healthier position overall to ride out temporary drops of economic activity without the irreversible effects we are currently facing. But I'm curious as to what you think the best economy- and lifesaving strategy would've been.