Too soon

What proof do you have that focusing on protecting the vulerable groups instead of a general lockdown is going to cause 50,000 to 100,000 extra deaths??  I think you're just making that up.  Why does opening up the economy have to increase any risk to vulnerable groups?  I guess you missed the part where I suggested we focus on protecting vulnerable groups.  I even put it in bold for you. 

Maybe if we had done that from the start, there would be far few deaths.  But we really didn't have the data then to know who was most vulnerable.   We do now.  We need to be smart about it.  You don't use a sledge hammer to pound in a nail.

Charles - excellent article. 

kevin is hiding behind the deaths. His real goal as well as others like him is to drag this out as long as possible in the hope of winning in November. 

They don't care how much destruction they cause as long as they win & to have as many people as possible dependent on the govt. 

Tom, 

1. Bullshit. You have no idea what I want or what my goals are.

2. Fuck you, you evil Trumper scum. You're willing to have thousands of people die just to get your orange hero reelected.

Whatever measures we might take to lessen the increased risk to those group, the fact remains that opening up WILL increase said risk. More people will die if we open up than if we don't. That's not in dispute. I don't consider those deaths to be "worth it;" you obviously do.

You said 50,000 - 100,000 more people will die.  Not based on any science but based on how you feel.  Now it's just 'More people will die'. 

People will be dying now because of the lockdown.  What about the 1.8 million people who would normally be diagnosed with cancer this year?  How many aren't getting early cancer screenings because it's an elective procedure?  How many others health is impacted negatively because they aren't getting their annual doctor visits?

What do you think the impact of the prolonged shutdown is going to be on the long term mental health of Americans?  Added suicides?  More homeless?  Domestic Violence?  Lot's of studies have shown that prolonged periods of unemployment lead directly to a decreased lifespan.

The tradeoff isn't between 'Considering those deaths to be 'worth it''.  It's at what point does the cure cause more deaths than the disease.   My own opinion is that if we pour our resources into protecting the vulnerable, rather than locking down our economic engine we'll have fewer deaths rather than more.  But don't think for one minute that means I don't care about Covid victims.

I never said the number would be any specific amount. That's why I posited a range of 50,000 to 100,000. I used as a benchmark a CDC prediction that if mitigation measures weren't implemented, there would be 200,000 deaths--and now, with such measures mostly in place, we're probably going to level off around 100,000.

But who cares what the precise number will be? ONE is too many if it's a loved one--or you.

We can avoid economic damage AND minimize deaths by continuing lockdowns through mid-May at least AND getting ALL of the relief money to individuals and businesses. One reason why so many people are screaming to get back to work is that Republicans have stolen much of the relief money to give to their big corporate donors, and have botched the distribution of the rest.

Keep in mind that we're only talking about 3-5 more weeks here. The data from other countries strongly suggests that it'll take just about that long to SAFELY resume normal life. During that time, if the government gets off its ass and keeps people afloat, the economic impact will be moderate in the long term, and the earth won't spiral into the sun, as Trumper governors have suggested.

We need to be patient.

Mark my words.  When the economy is terrible in a year, Kevin will claim that it was inevitable.  He will claim that not shutting the economy was never an option, when this was actually the best option.

Boilerman - you forgot to add that when the economy is bad in a year, Kevin will claim that it is ALL President Trump's fault.

Someone protests to much!  

So now you're claiming that 3-5 weeks of lockdown will save 50,000 - 100,000 Covid 19 deaths?  What are you basing that on?  The original models?  Well now we have real data.  The purpose of the lockdown was to flatten the curve so the healthcare system wasn't overwhelmed.  If you compare the curves, the area under the curves is the same.  It's just the peak is lower when you lockdown.  You aren't saving lives, you're just stretching out their deaths....or if you are saving lives it's because the healthcare system now has the capacity to treat them not because they aren't eventually catching the disease anyway.

The real question is if the healthcare system can handle the increased infection if we end the lockdown and focus on protecting the vulnerable.  The virus isn't going to be eliminated in 3-5 weeks.  There is no Vaccine.  If we end the lockdown tomorrow or in 3-5 weeks it's going to continue to spread. Don't ignore the cost of the lockdown in terms of human lives.  There are actually 10s of thousands of Healthcare workers getting laid off because of the lockdown.  How is that going to impact the health of Americans?

That's why the focus should be on keeping the elderly and people with chronic conditions isolated and making sure THEY don't come into contact with poeple who have the disease. 94% of fatalities in the New York City area had at least one chronic illness and 88% percent had at least two. Maybe we could deploy those 5 minute testing machines at every nursing home and test all the employees daily rather than lock down healthy Americans and prevent them from catching the virus and developing our herd imunity.  Just a thought.