Well if we open up with no restrictions a lot of people will get very sick very quickly. This will overwhelm hospitals. I mean we are almost at a complete ICU collapse right now already. And a lot of people will die, not just of covid but of other treatable diseases. Not to mention we will run out of PPE and medical supplies. Care will be rationed even more than it is now. More doctors and nurses and respiratory therapists will get sick and die. There will be a lot of death. So basically death, death and more death. This will disproportionally impact the poor and poor essential workers.

And then everything will shutdown anyway because nobody will go out. We might get 1-2 months maybe 3 months.

At this stage… what’s the point? I’m bored of this lazy and dishonest simplism cloaking itself as enlightened rationalism.

You know, because it’s self-evident, that any decision to “end lifestyle restrictions” is a complex one that involves trading off the risk of further COVID deaths versus the economic impact that lockdown causes. This is compounded by the external pressure of funding which constrains the operating parameters of states. None of this is controversial, and is a constant public discussion in every country.

Of course it’s not literally “impossible” for such a decision to be made. If I encounter someone making a good argument that this is the most effective path forward, I’ll listen to it.

Framing it as a rational choice which can just be made, free of consequence, at any point is a bullshit argument, and that’s what you’ve done.

>Let me hear your side.

In the absence of any support from the Federal government. many states and localities have re-opened in the face of growing numbers of cases, hospitalizations and deaths (more than 3,000 people in the US died yesterday from COVID).

Note that states and local governments are forbidden from running deficits, which is why many have reopened and stayed open even though cases/hospitalization/deaths have skyrocketed.

If they want to continue to pay police, fire fighters, EMTs and keep public hospitals open, they need revenue.

Implementing another stimulus as we did last spring, with support for state and local governments would allow us to stabilize the economy while limiting the risk to the populace.

The outside review board for the Pfizer vaccine approved it today. The FDA will likely give emergency approval for it in the next few days.

However, it will take at least six months to vaccinate enough people to limit the carnage.

With a stimulus from the Federal government, we can save lives while we vaccinate as many as will take it.

Not GP, but that's my side.

Edit: Fixed incorrect reference to the Pfizer "virus". That should (and now does) have read Pfizer "vaccine."

I'd love to hear from others who disagree with my take. I think it would be a good discussion. I hope someone who does disagree goes that route rather than other, less expressive ones.