The problem I see with that statement is that it's difficult, if not impossible to falsify.
Hospitals are nowhere near being overwhelmed, in general, which means that they have some capacity to handle an outbreak if we lift restrictions gradually. I know people who work at hospitals in places like LA, and they've reported that activity is relatively slow. (of course in part because fewer people are going to the ER for other issues)
Lives are being ruined by furthering a draconian lockdown. I know several people who have not only been laid off, but had their businesses destroyed and their dreams crushed. Someone in my neighborhood spent their life savings on starting a gourmet burgers and brews joint next to a movie theater, which would have undoubtedly succeeded in normal conditions. They're getting very few curbside orders because they opened after the pandemic started and nobody is familiar with the brand. They're almost certainly screwed, especially if some semblance of foot traffic doesn't begin coming back in the next month.
I, too, was in the early stage of starting a brick and mortar business before the lockdown. Fortunately, I hadn't opened up anywhere yet. Because my business relied on the existence of gyms, I would have been massively screwed. If there is a god, I'll thank him now for not putting me through the ordeal of owing tens of thousands of dollars to the bank. Now I'm not even going to bother opening up because there may not be any appreciable business in the next year or so, which also means people whom I would have employed have to look elsewhere and may be out of work.
Low hospital utilization seems to have become our only metric for success. I think that's crap, especially now that it's coming out that way more people have had this virus than the numbers suggested.
We can put on masks, wash our hands, and all that, but this idea that "the new normal" is to have little to no proximity with other human beings is demoralizing and wrong. Life isn't just about staying alive.
EDIT: To bring up anecdotes is not a fallacy, and I won't apologize for it.
Some ignorant boob happened to bring up NYC, and their comment to mine got flagged, but I still want to reply to that point.
You can't focus in on a particular city and then claim that, without draconian intervention, that NYC will be coming to a neighborhood near you. It's more complicated than that, and the more data we are getting, the more it's looking like we could begin to take measures to ease the restrictions in a reasonable way in parts of the world where it makes sense. But people like to point at the raw numbers rather than looking at the science or the per-capita numbers.
By using the logic of "but look at NYC!", we should keep the entire world closed until every city on the planet has no more cases, which is highly improbable and destructive.
+ CO2-increased houses make people much less clever,
+ Demotivation/decrease of testosterone makes people durably less productive, further hampering our ability maintain the little flow of goods that’s left.
We are setting up ourselves for a much more deadly future.
Exercise hasn't been banned, so unless you absolutely can not exercise without a full gym, there shouldn't be any reason to think people will be gaining weight, or having decreased testosterone. Even if you don't want to leave the house, you can still do things like Yoga, lift weights, or any number of other physical activities that need little or no equipment.
I'm not sure what the concern about CO2 is - at least in the Bay Area, we're in prime keep-the-windows-open-all-day weather. And the status quo would be working in offices or other buildings that tend to not even have openable windows, so even if the weather wasn't nice, indoor CO2 shouldn't be a concern.
That may be true, but that isn't going to change human behavior. Encouraging people to continuing to work out at home is a good thing, but most people are demoralized. Fewer people are going to exercise because there's nothing to do, nobody to see, and not much to look forward to for the next year. I know my fitness has decreased due to demoralization. Sure, I can exercise, but it's hard to find reasons to exercise beyond mere health. Most people also want to be fit because they want to look good, but during the pandemic, looking good for whom? Toss unemployment income and "survival" junk food into the mix, and you've got a population that is probably overall less healthy.
I'm on board with keeping up the exercise, by the way. It's just that the reality is that people aren't going to come out of this more healthy because their motivation has been crushed.
>The problem I see with that statement is that it's difficult, if not impossible to falsify.
All you have to do is take a look at hospitals in NYC to know how wrong you are and right the person you responded to is.
>Someone in my neighborhood spent their life savings on starting a gourmet burgers and brews joint
Holy shit won't someone please think of the gastropubs. This is why I'll never believe this is a good faith concern for the people that really need our concern right now: no one ever says "I know a delivery driver" or "I know a busboy" or "I know a janitor" that needs help. It's always some lifestyle business owner that we should be weeping for in these outcries.
of course i would. would you like to setup a call so i can tell you to your face in real life how absolutely morally repugnant and completely facile your ideas are?
i don't care i'm not a politician. people like you get away with spouting nonsense because no one ever shames them for it (they've always gotten the benefit of the doubt about their intelligence). i'm a firm believer in shaming people for their stupidity when it affects others. you have zero stake in this mr webdev and you should at least be forced to ante up your ego. so i don't care if you're persuaded, only that next time you'll think twice about opening your mouth because you expect everyone will just politely disagree with you.
Hospitals are nowhere near being overwhelmed, in general, which means that they have some capacity to handle an outbreak if we lift restrictions gradually. I know people who work at hospitals in places like LA, and they've reported that activity is relatively slow. (of course in part because fewer people are going to the ER for other issues)
Lives are being ruined by furthering a draconian lockdown. I know several people who have not only been laid off, but had their businesses destroyed and their dreams crushed. Someone in my neighborhood spent their life savings on starting a gourmet burgers and brews joint next to a movie theater, which would have undoubtedly succeeded in normal conditions. They're getting very few curbside orders because they opened after the pandemic started and nobody is familiar with the brand. They're almost certainly screwed, especially if some semblance of foot traffic doesn't begin coming back in the next month.
I, too, was in the early stage of starting a brick and mortar business before the lockdown. Fortunately, I hadn't opened up anywhere yet. Because my business relied on the existence of gyms, I would have been massively screwed. If there is a god, I'll thank him now for not putting me through the ordeal of owing tens of thousands of dollars to the bank. Now I'm not even going to bother opening up because there may not be any appreciable business in the next year or so, which also means people whom I would have employed have to look elsewhere and may be out of work.
Low hospital utilization seems to have become our only metric for success. I think that's crap, especially now that it's coming out that way more people have had this virus than the numbers suggested.
We can put on masks, wash our hands, and all that, but this idea that "the new normal" is to have little to no proximity with other human beings is demoralizing and wrong. Life isn't just about staying alive.
EDIT: To bring up anecdotes is not a fallacy, and I won't apologize for it.
Some ignorant boob happened to bring up NYC, and their comment to mine got flagged, but I still want to reply to that point.
You can't focus in on a particular city and then claim that, without draconian intervention, that NYC will be coming to a neighborhood near you. It's more complicated than that, and the more data we are getting, the more it's looking like we could begin to take measures to ease the restrictions in a reasonable way in parts of the world where it makes sense. But people like to point at the raw numbers rather than looking at the science or the per-capita numbers.
By using the logic of "but look at NYC!", we should keep the entire world closed until every city on the planet has no more cases, which is highly improbable and destructive.