[fzeroracer]

I'm going to keep repeating this until people understand the risks: Opening up too early without adequate testing in place means we go through the same problem that Hokkaido did. Which is that you get a second wave of infections and are forced to back into lockdown.

As for the article itself: Reopening the country wouldn't fix that either because it's a catch-22 situation. The people most at risk of dying from COVID-19 don't want to go to the hospital because of the risk. So they put off emergencies until it's too late. You don't solve this problem by reopening the country because the fear and the risk for said people is still there.

My parents are a great example. They have breathing issues which makes them especially at risk. They're afraid of getting routine tests done because catching the coronavirus could be very deadly.

[umvi]

So... you propose just staying on lockdown indefinitely until "adequate testing is in place?" And when will that be? It could be 6 months from now or more so long as the Trump administration is running things.

Lockdown isn't "free" like you seem to think. It has a very heavy cost. And some day (if not already), that cost will outweigh the lives saved from doing it in the first place. Because the combined suicides/mental health/homelessness/domestic violence/etc. increases from lockdown will be greater than [people at risk of covid-19] deaths.

Plus, if lockdowns are keeping hospitals empty, social distancing and masks without the lockdown part would allow us to utilize them more (without them going over capacity).

[macintux]

I have yet to hear anyone explain how we’re going to lose millions of lives due to the lockdown, whereas the risks of opening up without sufficient testing include that as a very real possibility.

Yes, it stinks that people are suffering due to the lockdown, but the government could (if it were so inclined) pay people to stay home indefinitely. It clearly can’t manage the virus, however.

[axguscbklp]

>the government could (if it were so inclined) pay people to stay home indefinitely

I'm a bit skeptical, and would be even if instead of "indefinitely" we were just talking about a couple of years. I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but I'm curious about how the math would work out, in your opinion.

[macintux]

The Federal reserve pumped, I believe, about 1 trillion dollars into the economy in March. That would pay every unemployed worker somewhere around 80k.

Yes, that’s somewhat apples to oranges due to the way the reserve operates, but the money is available if the will is.

[axguscbklp]

Thanks for the explanation. Yes, that makes sense. I originally, for some reason, thought that you were saying that the government could pay the entire country to stay home indefinitely - on re-reading your comment, I see that this is a rather silly misreading on my part of what you actually wrote.