Because it will cost too much, in monetary and non-monetary terms. That’s why.

The pharmaceutical industry is not likely to develop, test, gain approval for, and be able to manufacture and distribute billions of doses of a vaccine for a couple of years at least.

The idea that these measures would stay in place for that long is completely untenable. It would destroy far more lives than the virus. It would be better to lose a million people in their 70s and 80s than to extend this lockdown for a period of years.

But that’s what this has really always been about from a policy perspective. There was always going to be an “acceptable” number of deaths and a balance to be struck between mortality and other effects. The political class can’t simply tell people what that is though (people would never stand for it, understandably). Instead society will develop a consensus over time. Judging by the mood, the efforts to reopen, the protests (on the extreme side), that is starting to happen.

And the people working on this are all driven by their own agendas (that dipshit Neil Ferguson first and foremost).

None of that matches the plan. I don't see why you aren't getting it.

The plan is to reopen much of the economy pretty quickly, with moderate precautions. This is only possible because the numbers have gotten under control, or are getting there.

The "two years" doesn't match the prevailing expectations. The guess a couple months ago was 18 months. It looks very possible we'll get that down to a year or less...even this winter for mass vaccine availability.

My advice is to pay attention.

My advice is to not be such a condescending prick.

Tell me how much you know about vaccine development and production. Have you also been on the phone with the head of one of the world’s largest vaccine companies in the last few weeks?

I obviously saw Moncef’s comments. He might be right, or the most advanced candidates might stumble for various reasons. Either way he is going to project confidence, because that’s part of his job with this appointment (not to mention that until last week he sat on Moderna’s board).

Try to focus on reality and not the public relations effort.

Just to wade into the waters here....

As an immediate and initial course of action, I do agree with the idea of shutting everything down....However, we all need to realize that economic activity is essential to human health and well being. Even a command or non-complex/industrialized (Feudal/Agrarian) economy would not survive a prolonged furlough of it's total capacity for months on end.

The minute after the shutdown press conferences were over, our mayors and governors should have been consulting with the experts about how we get to reopening slowly but steadily. Even in the midst of the incline, some activities could be modified to allow for safety. Just off the top of my head:

Allow small businesses to open with a capacity constraint based upon square footage. If a clothing boutique is 1000 sq ft and maintaining an 6 ft radius from one another is 114 ft sq, then a max of 8 people are allowed in the shop at one time.

Have cities subsidize online delivery fees.

Allow cultural institutions to open per appointment.

Move towards all cashier less checkout.

But I guess that's been the case everywhere.

Asia is pretty much completely reopened. Most of Europe, many places in Americas. At this point, we probably have much more people living in places reopened than in places with restrictions.

The difference is I know I don't know anything. My job is to gather and regurgitate what the experts say.

None of what I said relies on one company's vaccine candidate. There are many candidates.

As for who's more condescending, I think it's the guy who thinks he knows more than the experts, not the guy who calls him on it.

N.J. reveals multi-stage coronavirus reopening plan. We’re in ‘Stage 1,' Murphy says.

https://cloudfront-us-east-1.images....MY7PHYCOY.jpeg

====================
https://www.nj.com/coronavirus/2020/...outputType=amp

When can people go to other states and/or stay in hotels? I have not seen that addressed anywhere. Has anyone stayed in a hotel in the last two months, even if for essential work? Do hotels check to see if you are essential work or anything?

I wish they would give us dates so I have an idea of when I'll not be furloughed anymore. NJ Unemployment is generous, very generous (probally why we get raped in taxes)... but even with that, I want to go back to work. Like I've had my twisted vacation already, for almost 2 months, but I do want to work again to make more, and also because it keeps the mind sharp.

I believe you can do that, right now. Pretty sure you could have always done that, anywhere in the U.S., but Hawaii had a quarantine-in-hotel rule.

I'm checking online for hotels for a trip this summer and seeing that hotels may ask for verification of essential work. Is this one of those things that is unenforceable, like keeping people from entering another state?

Here in Delaware, you can enter the state, but must quarantine for 14 days. That will still be in effect even as things begin to reopen in June. Short-term rentals are also banned. For the most part, this has been unenforceable, but the police are allowed to pull over out-of-state license plates to remind about quarantining (that are not in I-95, I-295, and I-495).

Oh mah gah I'm already waxing nostalgic for the "before times."

On Facebook I got those "memories" notifications, and a few pics that I shared from 6 years ago popped up, pictures I took at a restaurant. In addition to going to the library, I really miss eating at restaurants!

From May 18, 2014:
https://scontent-lax3-1.xx.fbcdn.net...0c&oe=5EE94828
Photo by me

https://scontent-lax3-1.xx.fbcdn.net...ff&oe=5EE777E4
Photo by me

Misty water-colored memories...

Sing it, Gladys! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9x6z9T0zG0

If deaths go down after a state reopens, could this prove the lockdowns weren't as important as we initially thought?

I mean, if one state is locked down and is barely getting better and another state opens up and is getting better by the day, do we ignore that? Because that is happening right now.

Honestly from what I've been told by hotel staff in Austin is that more people are starting to come. Alot of hotels occupancy is around 50% or more. Up from 20% last month.

No.

For one, there are still a lot of distancing measures in opened states. And a lot of people are avoiding the stuff that's reopening.

Two, there are too many variables. It would be evidence. It would take many times that evidence to even develop a prevailing theory, let alone what you'd call "proof." (The scientists will continue to use "theory" forever...kind of like gravity, human-caused climate change, and so on.)

Three, it's too early.

Four, there's not much testing even with the recent increases.

An animatronic sculpture called Wake was built here, displayed in Times Square for a while, and has returned home until September, when it will go off to be displayed somewhere in Europe. While here, it's been given a COVID-19 makeover:

South Slope sculpture on display with a COVID-19 reminder

https://static-10.sinclairstoryline....?1589827064496
Source.

IIRC the cross-country evidence from Sweden versus the other Scandinavian countries showed.

1. The overall reduction in activity was relatively similar, despite being entirely voluntary in Sweden.

2. Projected shrinkage of GDP across the countries is fundamentally identical.

3. Yet Sweden has a far higher death rate. Not as high as the worst-hit parts of the world like NYC, but higher than neighboring countries, or the U.S. as a whole.

The conclusion would suggest that the reduction in economic activity would happen regardless of whether social distancing was mandatory or voluntary.

Basically it very well may be the lessening of social distancing doesn't cause a "second wave." But the economy won't quickly recover either in that case.

From NYTimes Interactive.

Covid 19-related deaths(rate of doubling) as of May 19, 2020
By Metro Area:
36,089 New York(3 months)
4,259 Boston(4 weeks)
4,038 Chicago(4 weeks)
3,956 Detroit(3 months)
3,572 Philadelphia(4 weeks)
1,927 Los Angeles(4 weeks)
1,630 Washington(4 weeks)
1,122 Miami(5 weeks)
964 Indianapolis(6 weeks)
819 Denver(2 weeks)
764 Atlanta(6 weeks)
762 Baltimore(3 weeks)
723 Seattle(3 months)
657 St Louis(4 weeks)
632 Minneapolis-St Paul(3 weeks)
418 Riverside-San Bernardino(3 weeks)
389 Dallas-Ft Worth(4 weeks)
355 Phoenix(3 weeks)
308 Houston(6 weeks)
296 Las Vegas(6 weeks)
283 Cleveland(4 weeks)
273 Pittsburgh(2 months)
242 San Diego(4 weeks)
236 San Francisco-Oakland(2 months)
231 Columbus(3 weeks)
223 Cincinnati(6 weeks)
161 Kansas City(3 months)
149 Charlotte(4 months)
139 San Jose(6 months)
137 Tampa-St Petersburg(2 weeks)
130 Nashville(7 weeks)
111 Portland(2 months)
103 Austin(5 weeks)

I don’t think I know more than the experts, but I recognise their biases and priorities. It’s not their knowledge but their view of the trade offs that I am questioning.

Someone like Neil Ferguson knows an awful lot about epidemiology (although his models have always been wrong and erred significantly on the side of more negative scenarios). But that doesn’t mean he should decide public policy, that preventing as many deaths as possible regardless of other costs should be the objective, and so on. Not to mention he’s enjoyed the media attention (at least until recently).

Doctors have as their priority, perhaps only priority, the saving of lives. That’s good and admirable in a doctor. Policymakers have other things to consider. Just because an expert in virology and epidemiology says that the way to minimise the loss of life is to keep society “locked down”, with social distancing, no non-essential travel, no restaurants or bars, no large gatherings, and so on until there is a vaccine does not mean that is the right course of action - even if they are correct that this will save lives.

I hear you. I don't give a poop about cases though. It means literally nothing. I only care about hospitalization and deaths.

But the political narrative is quite different. The Illinois governor is acting like if ONE business opens up before he deems them ready, people will DIE. This hyperbolic language is literally their 'go-to' answer to questions the media ask of them. But, let's say 70% of the economy is shut down and then another 20% is allowed open. Even if these businesses see only 50% of their usual business, this is still a good case study to compare to places that are still in a strict lockdown, right?

I mean, we are told people will die if businesses open back up, period. If this isn't the case, we certainly shouldn't ignore that. Even CNN is conceding the Georgia and Florida case and they had a doctor on last night that stated wearing a mask while riding a bike is completely unneeded. I understand why politicians would want to prove lockdowns work, they are the ones who decided that. It's human nature to want to be right(look on this forum lol). But as casual observers, if a place like Georgia opens up, and it's been open now for almost a month, and things are getting better, this throws a wrench in the stick lockdown narrative. It doesn't mean its scientific proof, of course, but it should get us questioning some things.