The last rounds of major public (or notionally public) buildouts of infrastructure where profits be damned were funded by the feds, because the states and localities do not have the financial resources to add this along to whatever else they are currently funding, and even if they did you'd see a patchwork that mostly fails the truly underserved.

This is extremely unlikely due to the current administration.

> What bothers me is the contention that my rights are contingent upon reported capacity of already existing hospitals

This is pretty selfish. What about all of the old and immunocompromised people that could _die_? What about the families of those people? These people deserve rights too and I’d say their right to _stay alive_ trumps your “right” to get a hair cut or whatever

Let the old and immuno-compromised shelter in place then while the rest of us build herd immunity. We don't shut down the tobacco or alcohol industry even though second hand smoke and DUIs kill orders of magnitude more innocents than covid-19 ever will. Millions of people die every year. That's never going to change - such is life. You gotta draw a line somewhere and I think the "save lives at all costs, even the cost of the nation's economy" attitude of covid-19 is too far. You'll pay for a ruined economy later in suicides and increased crime (not to mention suicides snuff out way more man-years of life than old people dying of sickness who were already nearing the end of their rope).

You don’t think that covid-19 growing largely unchecked, infecting millions of Americans and overwhelming our healthcare system won’t crash the economy and kill young people? We have a lot to lose and betting it all on for the economy, which would likely be ruined either way, seems foolish to me.

I suppose I just don't believe that would happen. You can still practice social distancing/face masks/hand washing without shelter-in-place. I believe those three things alone would significantly slow down the spread to manageable levels. So I simply don't see a scenario where it "grows unchecked" to millions in the USA. It would hit millions eventually (like swine flu) but it would be manageable (not "unchecked"). Most of the US is geographically separated and not densely populated (except for cities like NYC), and we are only at 3M cases globally and that is with months of growth.

Lastly, even if it grew unchecked, I don't believe overwhelming the healthcare system would crash the economy. It might devastate the healthcare industry, but it wouldn't devastate all industries like prolonged, no-end-in-sight lockdowns are doing. I also don't believe it would "kill [significant amounts of] young people" because I believe the mortality rate is much lower than currently estimated.

Suicide is already killing more young people than covid-19 due to lockdown. 2 USAFA cadets committed suicide because of lockdown orders this month, yet 0 cadets have died from covid-19.

> What bothers me is ... my rights are contingent upon ...

Your rights have been an illusion the whole time. We're one organism. The individual is a useful abstraction, as is further dividing that into the cells, but these abstractions have limits.

Heads up: You'll also die.

> What bothers me is the contention that my rights are contingent upon reported capacity of already existing hospitals.

What rights do you think you have here? Businesses are controlled through licensing and zoning. Outdoor spaces are regulated. Which right are you referring to?

The Bay Area shelter-in-place orders purport to ban you from inviting friends over, which is neither licensed nor regulated.