Replies

This is an excerpt posted on FR-—

“””Instead, Atlas wrote, states should craft policies that focus on protecting the elderly and those with chronic underlying conditions. Targeting that segment of the population, although it’s smaller, will have the greatest impact on minimizing hospitalizations (preventing the health care system from becoming overwhelmed) and reducing deaths”””

https://www.theblaze.com/news/stanford-doctor-end-coronavirus-lockdown?utm_source=theblaze-dailyPM&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Daily-Newsletter__PM%202020-04-24&utm_term=TheBlaze%20Daily%20PM%20-%20last%20270%20days

Many of us ‘numbers’ guys have been saying the same thing.

The ‘at risk’ people in the USA are the ones who have a very high mortality rate if they get infected.

Whereas, the healthy working age population is getting infected, but they are not experiencing bad outcomes.

Healthy people need to go back to work. Healthy children need to go back to school. Vulnerable people need to keep hunkering down.

It does not seem the solution to the problem is any more complex than that.

Actually, full “lockdown” is the only simple response. That’s probably why it is being done. Those in charge, with the exception of the President, are mostly simpletons, and simple is all they can handle.

They could also probably handle a return to normalcy with the threat of the virus eliminated. I suspect that this is what they are angling for.

Your idea of “go back to work” with the threat of the virus still present, is far more complex than you realize. Let me give some examples:
1) Work, with health insurance? How does that work? Who would ensure?
2) Liability? Business would be sued by people contracting this.
3) How can the vulnerable actually be protected with the virus spreading freely among the “healthy” with which they must interact?

I think that, actually and sadly, some bright minds have thought about this a little, and what we are doing is the best they could come up with.