If the discussion is whether we slowly & smartly "reopen" or not... then just extrapolating to a death toll of 96k in 2 weeks is not very helpful. The question is if we remain in shutdown mode how many fewer deaths will we have compared to whatever "reopened" mode we'd be in. Then we can talk about whether it is worth it or not.
Since nobody seems to be able to make those kinds of projections accurately... we're left with a silly back & forth where one side seems to say they obviously value life more than the other.
Silly. Take it as a given 99.999% of us value life.
By quoting you,
@bobongo ...I don't mean to be picking on or directing my comment right at you.
Well, I was just doing the arithmetic, since the two-week number had been brought up.
Yes, it comes down to a tradeoff between lives lost and economic damage (and yes, the lives affected by that damage as well).
And, I think we can't overlook the question of what happens if we open up now or give it more time to get a measure more control over the spread of the virus and
then open up. You have to factor in the possibility that if we open up too soon, we could just be shutting down again down the road. There are a lot of moving parts here and the equation is very complicated.
But on the other hand, if the shutdown is the kind of uncoordinated, piecemeal half-measures we've seen heretofore, it probably wouldn't make much sense to repeat that again. The response thus far has been a calamity both economically and health-wise, IMO. Coulda, woulda, shoulda. At this disastrous juncture maybe we should just give up, open up, and let the damned thing rip.
One thing is for certain, though. Whatever one's view, we are all Americans. None are more or less "real" than others. Like you said, 99.999% of us value life, and I think 99.999% of us want what's best, however we define it.
