I've come to the conclusion that perhaps the way in which I am framing my argument against the lock downs is a bit too contentious. I think maybe I should present it in another way, and if anyone has disagreements with part of it, let me know.
First, 7 weeks ago when this hit, we had too many known unknowns to generate any kind of targeted policy, and applying our limited resources (all resources are limited) to a general lock down was perhaps the best solution. However, now we have answered many unknowns about the virus, such as what the infection fatality is about and who is most vulnerable, namely those over 60. Also, since 40% of deaths in the USA are in retirement communities, it is of my opinion we are not focusing enough resources on those institutions.
Additionally, the one unknown we still dont know is when vaccine will be created. However, it is impossible to actually predict this.
Due to this new information, I feel it is now time to focus our limited resources to those who can benefit best, like retirement homes. Additionally, our resources are dependent on tax revenue, which is quickly being depleted by the lock down. To prevent us from going broke and not being able to provide any recourses to anyone, we should open up with social distancing.
With that said, I consider NYC to be a separate problem and, essentially, feel that area is screwed. Given that this virus spreads in interior/underground spaces along with the vast amount of those spaces you are forced to share with 1000s of others in NYC, it is beyond my comprehension how anything but a full lock down mitigates it there.
It is difficult to know how you guys are going to move forward from here because of the way you have dealt with it so far. I will tell you how we handled it - based on WHO guidelines (don't roll your eyes!) So I am not sure your "known unknowns" argument is valid - the same guidelines were there for everyone.
Within 22 days of our first case we went into a pretty serious lockdown including borders closed and the prohibition of alcohol and cigarettes! (Cigarettes get shared quite a lot in this neck of the woods.)
We were told then what the plan was, which was to buy time to get our response organised, then gradually open up - which we have now started. The point was, as you know, not to have medical facilities overwhelmed. A further benefit is that the longer you delay it - the closer you get to a therapy and eventually the vaccine...
There are five levels of "lockdown" and the whole country has moved down from Level 5 to level 4. I suspect that we will go to Level 3 after two weeks and so on...
All the while they are encouraging folks over 60 to remain at home.
The bottom line is that we were told that 60%-80% of the population are going to get the virus and hopefully they are now in a position to cope with whatever is coming....our numbers are going up at a good clip so it is now "game on".
I previously compared us with the UK - similar size populations and we started at more or less the same time. This allows you to compare strategies.
You talk about resources....boy, are we in a bad way financially (years of corruption), so you guys are "golden" in that area compared to many countries, believe it or not!
The point is, at least we have a "national
strategy" which everyone understood and, up to this point, accepted.
I must also add that at this point, the population is getting "Joe Kitchen-ish" so we have very interesting times ahead.
In short - you need a
plan with buy-in from as many folks as possible and many of your governors seem have them in one form or another.
Another thing, people are not stupid - they won't go out if they don't believe it is safe.
