Do you think subsidizing the poor enough so our economy doesn't have to choose between immediately collapsing and killing the poor wouldn't save us an enormous set of costs?
Not to say its impossible, or that we shouldn't try--we should. But when you have a bunch of senators arguing, it's easier to point to the easy numbers.
I think you said it yourself with your comment about senators arguing. The root cause is an overall lack of political will, not any technical or logistical impediments in modelling impact.
The U.S. Census, GAO, and various other bureaucratic organizations (USDR, EPA, etc), all seem to be quite competent when it comes to performing studies and gathering data.
So is the IRS, Department of Defense, etc.
Of course there are lots of problems, but the U.S. Federal Government has plenty of agencies able to competently perform some sort of study.
Basically, it doesn't matter how quickly we re-open if people don't have any money to spend, don't feel comfortable spending, and aren't leaving their homes.
[1] https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/unemployment-rate
Clearly, the current administration puts corporate profits over the lives of Americans. Clearly, the current administration is allergic to hard work. Hopefully, Americans can send the message in November that there's no room in our government for people like that.
People realized that was idiotic? Don't celebrate that someone accidentally did something worthwhile for a terrible reason. Target your efforts at doing things that are worthwhile, not at doing things that are hard.
This
>Don't celebrate that someone accidentally did something worthwhile for a terrible reason.
Doesn't track with this.
>Target your efforts at doing things that are worthwhile, not at doing things that are hard.
I think you're missing nuance.
I say, condemn those who lazily do the easiest jobs that don't interrupt their sleep at night.
Rather, we should all be trying to make the greatest positive impact within 40 hours of work a week. Those who do more are being taken advantage of one way or a dozen. Those who do less are taking advantage.
By setting a floor and a ceiling we limit abuses on both sides and,hopefully,better distribute labor.
Also,doing things that are hard for the sheer sake of it is not idiotic. It can be a positive characteristic, just like avoiding difficulty is a negative one.
I don't think it would be especially controversial to say it was done for a terrible reason. We didn't do that specifically because it was hard; those are just words from JFK's speech. We did that because the Soviet Union had beaten us to putting a man (and a satellite) in orbit, and we thought it was crucially important to beat them to something related.
What is "terrible" about advancing science and putting humans in space?
Neither of those was a reason for the project.