inierested reader wrote:
We’re caught in a trap, forced to decide between lives and livelihoods, public health and the economy. Most discussion on the topic descends into chirping and name-calling, dividing mainly along political lines (at least in the US, if perhaps not as much elsewhere). I’m wondering if we can manage some calm discussion on a productive way through this. Nobody wants to destroy the economy and nobody wants people to die, or at least those are my starting assumptions, and yet some degree of both is unavoidable.
My question is, given what we’ve learned so far, what is the best balance of freedoms versus restrictions to find an optimum path through this?
I presume that all the states as they reopen have instituted a phased response. Here in Florida, we have what the governor calls "Safe. Smart. Step by Step," which draws directly on the White House plan.
Each step depends on meeting certain health criteria. Specifically to move to the next step, the state must demonstrate "downward trajectory of the syndromic and epidemiology criteria while maintaining adequate health care capacity. This will occur when there is no evidence of a rebound or resurgence of COVID-19 cases and satisfies the benchmarks outlined in this Safe. Smart. Step-by-Step. plan."
I know that we have a lot of COVID deniers on this board, but the best thing that anyone can do is assume that the virus threat is real, and follow protocols that arguably reduce transmission. That means social distancing, mask wearing, limiting interactions, hygiene, etc.
The faster and more consistently your state meets its own metrics criteria, the faster your state can open up. Follow directions.