| There are two extreme paths we can take. The first is that we do nothing, the other is that we completely lock down our society like China. While the first option would be unwise, the second would also be unwise. A complete shutdown for a disease as virulent as Covid-19 will just suppress the virus for the duration of the shutdown. Ignoring the extreme difficulty and impracticality of shutting society down for a moment, recognize that the moment the shutdown ends, the virus will probably reappear and continue to spread. What then? Another complete shutdown? When does it end? No, the right solution is a distributed solution in which affected companies and communities deal with the virus, imposing gradual restrictions on gatherings, work, schooling etc in an organic way. Which is exactly what is happening in the US right now. The point of all this is, what more can the US government do than it is already doing? Send the military in to shut down the highways? Hold scientists at gunpoint until they produce a vaccine? Many (Media, Democrats) are trying to leverage this to their political advantage, but aside from small changes in approach, what exactly do they want the government to do differently? |
To date, most of the complaints about the current administrations' handling of COVID-19 have been about the cuts to the CDC, the history of Pence and Redfield regarding HIV, and other fact based arguments and criticisms. It is entirely possible that none of these factors had or will have a substantive impact on the spread of COVID-19. But they are still valid criticisms none the less.
In contrast, take Trump's response to the Ebola crisis[1], which was a remarkable example of fear-mongering and politiking in the face of a potential crisis.
[1]https://www.vox.com/2020/2/26/21154253/trump-ebola-tweets-co...