Leadership is about balancing competing concerns, and five states in particular reacted in a way that is increasing human suffering rather than minimizing it. And even after paying a very high cost, they have infection rates similar to the rest of the country.
Whereas, places like North Carolina, Texas, and Florida not even peaked yet. Seems odd to declare victory, when their numbers are steadily climbing.
I wonder, what is the economic cost of people falling sick, and needing medical treatment? Are the red states including that in their accounts of human well-being? Or is it a 'screw you, you're sick, it's your problem now'?
> Several wealthy states seem to have forgotten that money doesn’t grow on trees and obliterated their tax bases. Most other states are pretty healthy and not in need of additional bailouts.
The list of states that are "healthy," economically, also coincidentally lines up with the list of states with the least accurate counting of current infections and have done the least to flatten their respective curves. Their actual health, the word often associate with human physical well-being, is a black box and it almost feels like they prefer to keep it that way.
And keep in mind there's a few confounding factors here (how easy it is to apply for unemployment).
And what of the economic damage of an epidemic raging out of control? Do we just assume it is zero?
Economic damage is part and parcel of living in a post-covid world.
Take a look at this unemployment map:
https://files.taxfoundation.org/20200521093315/Table-2-of-Ci...
Several wealthy states seem to have forgotten that money doesn’t grow on trees and obliterated their tax bases. Most other states are pretty healthy and not in need of additional bailouts.
These states now have two crises instead of one.