The previous threads about covid have a large number of comments basically saying you can choose between saving lives or the economy. Anybody who suggested we should open up was accused of being greedy and wanted people to die to avoid being inconvenienced.
People are getting a more complete view of the potential outcomes and options.
If the most likely outcome is that 50-70% of the population gets infected anyway, then the goal shouldn't be to save lives. It should just be to keep a buffer of beds available in hospitals and to close only enough to keep that buffer. This is what NY is doing with their 30% hospital capacity buffer metric. The bay area has had plenty of hospital capacity and people can see that as a failure with the 50-70% assumption.
Of course, that all could be wrong, and we could save millions by continuing to be mostly closed. I'm not sure. But the change in tone could be people moving towards the first option.
> The previous threads about covid have a large number of comments basically saying you can choose between saving lives or the economy. Anybody who suggested we should open up was accused of being greedy and wanted people to die to avoid being inconvenienced.
You said "what do you expect, positive comments?". I was explaining that in previous posts there were quite a few positive quotes about requiring everybody to stay home. Anybody who suggested we shouldn't stay at home was vilified.
Data shows that most of the virus propagation happens inside and that, health wise, all that stay at home eating and watching TV will definitely have a cost on health, both body and mental, and still, a lot of people want the lockdown to continue.
Another of those instances where I don't understand my contemporaries I guess...
That seems like a mischaracterization of the order. LA is doing a gradual reopening of beaches starting tomorrow. The Taylor Swift concert in July with 100k attendees may not happen, but it's not like you're trapped at home