Exactly. I think that a lot of “lockdown skeptics” are totally cool with a targeted and phased restriction lift-up that involves clear metrics on how and when each stage should proceed. But it all gets drowned out by people instantly resorting to “they are advocating for an instant lift-up of all restrictions, what a bunch of morons who don’t care for human lives” sort of arguments, as soon as they hear anything but a unanimous agreement with an indefinite lockdown.
Re:Take the Shutdown Skeptics Seriously
by greglindahl on Sunday May 10, 2020 @03:23PM
(#23135317)
The current policy for my county, state, and federal government is a targeted and phased restriction lift-up, that involves metrics that unclear because we don't really know enough yet.
You might want to re-evaluate the "lockdown skeptics" arguments in that light.
>that involves metrics that unclear because we don't really know enough yet
Not knowing numbers is not the same as vague or unclear metrics. For example, saying "phase 3 will proceed once the hospital occupancy goes below 30%" doesn't qualify as vague in my book (numbers and such obviously made up by me). While we don't know when that happens, the metric itself is very clear and specific.
What kind of metrics does your county's lift-up plan use that are unclear just "because we don't really know enough yet"?
The U.S. also doesn't have to choose between individual destitution and death of the vulnerable. Some combination of financial support covered by bonds with freezing debt collection of various categories would provide significant relief.
As in all macroeconomic challenges a combination of approaches is necessary.