Sam the problem with such enthusiasm is that there are way too many unknowns, so there is no way to calculate risk. A conservative approach is the only responsible way until risks can be calculated. These unknowns include:
- How will the infection [and hence death] rate develop if things go back to any form of BAU?
- How do we develop risk assessments for business types? This is vital for any business that relies on lots of people in the one place at the one time.
- What portion of the community will continue to be vulnerable to the virus if it continues to be active in the community?
- How will elevated risk of infection impact social behaviour, and what impact will that have on businesses and employment?
- How will government deal with continued significant rates of infection in a country that has a privatised health care system?
Reopening for business is a very popular idea for obvious reasons. But in the absence of data such a course of action any time soon is just a gamble. Sometimes we gamble and win, but mostly not. In this case the US would be going all in on not a strong hand. It could be a good call. But if it isn't the consequences could be catastrophic.
Obviously I am not about to say what the US should do. I will say that if our PM proposed something reckless he would not be supported by any but a few who see only profit as the goal.
Controls over medicines are critical. While there are a lot of possibles being tried it will be some time before efficacy and safety can be ascertained. There are many instances of medicines going out to the marketplace as supposedly safe, but turn out to lethal or dangerous. In the rush to get an anti-viral medicine a lot of mistakes and be made, lies told and harm done.
Trump and his mates might be right about this anti-malarial medicine. Or they could be wrong. Expert medical opinion is divided at this stage. I observe that Trump and play are not urging that evaluation and testing be speeded up - rather people should be taking the drug now. However there is dividing line between a salesman and a physician - one is duty bound to do no harm by not urging actions not grounded in science.
Precipitous action sometimes pays off. But steady, methodical and thought through action tends to deliver more enduring results.
Yes, there is a crisis. The economy is tanking. But we conjure money out of nothing these days. We have to chose whether we live in a community or an economy - and whether the function of an economy is to serve the community, or just a handful.
A number of expert observers think we won't go back to business as usual. That may be a good thing. We need to think about that. For the few who see that their wealth and influence may dwindle that prospect is awful. They will being urging others to expose themselves to risks they will not be exposed to.
In World War 1 the advent of machinery in warfare hadn't sunk into the minds of military leaders who sent thousands of men to their deaths on a daily basis while camping out behind the lines. Something had fundamentally changed about how wars would be fought, but those who were leaders did not know it and did not get it.
This may be a similar kind of situation.
You make a case here. (it must be noted, this post and most of my recent posts are US centric... as I honor each nations right to serve the citizens and residents of their nation and their responsibility to do so).
But I see nothing in your post that addresses the risks I (and others) have clearly pointed out if we did not develop and implement a plan where that plan is announced to the people of a nation and followed then, with solid coordination with governors (state by state), followed through on.
I also read things in your post that appear to be considered as facts which I know are not facts but "spin" by certain media... as if the information sources you have accessed are only those (thus why you might "believe" it to be true).
Let me provide personal information so you can assess if I have motives to push this -
I am 62 years old and am 40 lbs overweight (and considered obese). I have asthma, I have family history of heart issues. I am just below what they call "pre-diabetic." I have borderline hypertension as my blood pressure readings hover between 125 over 72 ish up to 140 over 80 ish most days. Surely I am in a higher risk category.
I am (now) retired not by choice but because my specialty is no longer in demand. My income is derived from a very conservative portfolio of investments spread over many different sectors and has barely been impacted by this financial downturn. My income supports my wife, an immigrant from Colombia whose an artist and earns no income. I also provide the home, food and medicines for her 22 year old daughter. My average annual Adjusted Gross Income over the last seven years has been below $45,000 and I live in a city, Dallas, Texas and rent the home we live in. My net worth (not counting the investments) is less than $20,000, maybe less than $10,000. Why would I share this? To make sure a reader of my posts doesn't draw some conclusion that my arguments are, in any way, based on selfishness or greed. Or that I don't have serious risk with regards to what might happen with me if I caught the virus.
It's just the opposite. I am watching a decay of a formerly (and very recently) vibrant society. It seems so clear to me that costs to our society are not simply and only the costs of illness, the strain on the medical system (though the fears of the degree of impact have already proven way, way overblown save for New York City)... and most significantly, the loss of life... all that
directly from the illness. - the costs (again, as I outlined in other posts but seems to have been missed or ignored) are the easily predictable costs of poverty (poverty kills), depression and despair (for those who lost jobs... jobs they held to support their families and themselves, jobs they see little or no hope in getting back - depression kills), those who resort to drugs or alcohol, become addicted and resort to crime or other harmful means to support their habit (only a band aid anyways... depression or overdose too often win - drug/alcohol addiction kills).
Specifically, with regards to Hydrochloroquine, zithromiacin and zinc... more information is coming forth
daily from credible sources and this includes studies. But because of legacy regulations on the US FDA, foreign studies cannot be used to approve the drug
formerly. And the "in the tank" media (most of the major media conglomerates that flood the US airwaves and dominate social media (by design) and are algorithmically placed at the top of Google (the dominant search engine as well as other search engines), they
intentionally filter out all the positive news and I have yet to see ANY of these mention that the FDA cleared the treatment
officially for off-label use. Please, read that again - the FDA cleared the treatment
officially for off-label use. Donald Trump personally and directly, via his promotion that folks who feel they "have nothing to loose" (because they believe they are close to death with no other treatment available) - call their doctor and discuss it and... if they and their doctor decide - try it as (again) what do they have to lose? Their life! (to quote a news source that applied this logic to
the risk of using this treatment despite the fact the safety of the drug, Hydrochloroquine
has been overwhelmingly proven for over six decades of widespread use. The following is not the only example where Trump, because he brought it up (or was asked about it) in his news conferences, played a key role in saving a life
in her own words.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...redit-trump-her-covid-19-recovery/2967210001/
"If President Trump had not talked about this it wouldn't have been something that would be accessible for anyone to be able to get right now.” Within a few hours of taking the drug, she said she was already in recovery.
But Whitsett said Trump's comments helped in her case.
"It has a lot to do with the president ... bringing it up,"
Whitsett said. "He is the only person who has the power to make it a priority."
BUT - In the piece you can read the following -
"Health experts, however,
remain skeptical about both its safety and its effectiveness."
So which health experts would that comment be referring to? Well, some are the same one's who bought into the ridiculous models
and have demonstrated single mindedness and only one goal without any consideration of the impact of everlasting draconian efforts. Other "experts" are easily vetted as to their political biases. I have yet to come upon a single exception to either of these. If you have one, show me.
So now... look at the media. Why do they push a massively spun single side of the story? Because it captures the emotionally and/or the idealogically vulnerable of the masses who, in many cases, never see the underlying most likely truth. They want as much chaos, mayhem and death as possible. They want it all and only because they believe such is their only hope of achieving the political goal of defeating Trump in seven months. Did that sink in? Let it sink in. And then, if one is able... start watching those same news sources with
both eyes open instead of one.