You are missing my point completely. The only solution to what you say is to shut down completely. Risk and percentages have to be limited by as much as possible while allowing for normalcy to return. Can you afford that? Most people I know can not. Risk is going to exist and you can not stop it. First of all, your theory assumes that my wife is at the store at the same time as my neighbor. Thats an odd take. The fact is, the number of folks at the store is the number of folks at the store. What are ya gonna do? People of faith will go back to church. You cant stop that much longer. Peole will have to get their businesses going sooner than later. Non profits need to get back to their work sooner than later, Churches need to fellowship together sooner than later. In many places that time is now, and in others it is maybe a bit further off.
That the only reason for lockdown was to ensure that the healthcare system wasn't overrun. It was never about preventing either cases or deaths. That's it. 99% of locations meet this criterion. There were always going to be more cases and more deaths. That's not an argument for staying in lockdown. So if you don't want to re-open, then you must provide an alternative. Staying in lockdown is not an argument. That isn't public policy.
So almost doesn't count? To be fair, I'm not sure you want to use NO as your token example. In any case, that's one location, and NO is certainly not representative of the population at large. If you're looking for a good model, I would point you to Ohio.
Staying in a lockdown isn’t the plan. Opening up safely is the plan. Getting case counts low enough to be able to test trace and isolate is what is being worked towards. When that is possible, then we can open up and keep the spread under control. We still have loads of states with rising case counts. That’s in spite of stay at home efforts. It’s not unreasonable to believe that if measures were not in place, more hospitals would be overwhelmed. There are areas of the country that can move towards reopening. It will create more spread. We need more testing and tracing capacity to accelerate reopening. Everyone wants to reopen. I’ve got a lot of unemployed family members. But many want to do it so that the cases, hospitalizations and fatalities don’t spike. It isn’t a simple open or close call. It’s let’s get it opened safely as fast as we possibly can.
My wife played piccolo but marched in the Gator band holding a trumpet because they didn’t have enough trumpet players. She didn’t play it. Just marched with it.
There are always going to be more cases. Hot take: That numbers continue to rise begs the question about the efficacy of it in the first place. Consider Sweden. They don't have the best death rate, but also not the worst. They're in the middle. Consider South Korea. They're seeing spikes with re-opening despite some of the most Draconian measures. Like I said, Ohio has a reasonable plan.
Five countries are higher than Sweden (excluding San Marino and Andorra). How is that the middle? There are a lot more than 15 countries in the world. No, they are not always going to rise. There are tons of places they are falling. Do you look anything up or just wing it?
You said "Outside of NYC, I am unaware of any other healthcare system even remotely close to being overrun." I provided you one.
You provided me with one that was almost overrun. UF almost lost to Miami. Also, like I said, that's not an argument to keep lockdowns going everywhere.
Viruses spread when there is opportunity to spread. Your wife doesn't have to be at the store at the same time to get sick. The virus can live on surfaces for a few days. Simply put, the more people you interact with, the higher the risk. The more people your 1st degree people interact with (2nd degree to you), the higher the risk for you. Opening up places where people congregate in close quarters, the risk is even higher. Sure there's risk in everything. But as of right now, there's no cure, no treatment, and no immunity for this disease. If there's an outbreak in your city and you get hospitalized, you'll be isolated and won't be able to see family. New York didn't shelter in place and it was awful. New Orleans barely escaped a similar fate, but it was close. Medically speaking, nothing has changed in the last two months. The risk of a NY or NE style outbreak in every city remains high. If we open up too soon, we lose everything we've gained by sheltering in place. I'd prefer we avoid that.
Again, you said "remotely close." That is certainly "remotely close." If you would like to amend the claim, then I am happy to discuss that. But you shouldn't move the goalposts without acknowledging it.
Do you read or just skim through it? Literally this is at least the fourth time I'm posting this: Coronavirus in the United States - news and thoughts You should know by now I'm not posting up opinions without sources to back it up. If you haven't figured that by now, then you need to pay closer attention. I'm counting only Europe and North America for comparison.
Isn’t South Korea’s total death count in the 200’s? Their spike came because they were so confident, they opened freaking night clubs. Their situation is miles different from us, though it does show that unless the virus is absolute zero (likely impossible) - it can get started all over again anywhere there are crowds.
Click on the link. It will take you to a previous post. Third time I'm posting that info in this thread alone. And I know I posted it at least in one other.
They were so confident because they effectively doxed their citizens and took some of the most Draconian measures anywhere. They're seeing a spike because the numbers are always going to go up. Unless your proposition is to live in a bubble until you're in a coffin, then that's the reality. You're not just going to wait it out. That was never the intent.