> This is not a fair characterization. Rather, it could be said that the externalities of suspension of elective surgeries, widespread business closures, widespread social isolation and unprecedented fear (which is certainly disproportionate to the risk, _even in those with comorbidities_), are all factors that those who are parroting the "Stay home!" party line are neglecting.

Pundits advocating for reopening are deliberately conflating those things, as if the ROI on having a movie theater, or a hairdresser open is the same as allowing a tumor removal brain surgery to proceed.

It's not. Nobody's advocating that everything should be closed forever, but there's an enormous space between "Let's figure out how to get people the medical care they need, because elective medical procedures cannot be postponed forever", and "Everything's fine, everyone go back to work".

The fact that you're bringing up the global food supply is testament to this. Most of the food supply disruptions were caused by direct impact of the virus, with food workers getting sick - not overly aggressive closures. Food is an essential service, no government on the planet told food producers, or food logistics workers to stay home. [1] Yet, the re-open folks are pushing hard on the fiction that we're all going to starve to death, because clothing retailers aren't operating. Meanwhile, the reason you can't get ground meat is because 80% of the people working at the local meatpacking plant are sick, because the plant manager refuses to provide PPE, sanitary working conditions, or even to send sick employees home.

[1] There were temporary border closures for migrant agricultural workers in the US, but they were very quickly lifted, once the government realized that Americans don't pick strawberries. Canada never closed itself to TFWs, neither did most of Europe.