> This is not at all what the paper is suggesting, and people should not be interpreting it as such. I don't think the OP meant that the paper is suggesting th

> This is not at all what the paper is suggesting, and people should not be interpreting it as such. I don't think the OP meant that the paper is suggesting that, the article linked makes it clear that Senators (such as Rand Paul) are using this pre-print paper to suggest exactly that. Rand Paul has a lot of clout and influence over the various narratives in this country, especially against protective mandates. In his world, public policy would be non-existent, and the will of the people would be enacted through market forces (choosing to go to certain businesses based on their personal decisions to impose mandates as a business on their customers or employees). Then the market decides if we actually as a country naturally fight against the virus at all or instead help it spread, and further divide the country based on people's uninformed individual purchasing choices. The science really doesn't enter the picture for Rand Paul, despite him being a medical doctor, because to him government intervention in anything is always inherently bad.