Exactly. While this plan would certainly result in some disruption, it would be a lot less than the current status quo. And you can't really compare it to simply "opening back up" without a plan like this, because the simple fact is that even without government-enforced lockdowns, many (perhaps most) people won't return to a normal level of activity if they don't feel safe doing so.
> “...because the simple fact is that even without government-enforced lockdowns, many (perhaps most) people won't return to a normal level of activity if they don't feel safe doing so.“
you’re underestimating the pain that many americans are feeling after just a few weeks of (soft) lockdown. it’s not that people want to be unsafe, it’s that their livelihoods are in grave danger if the lockdowns last for months. many people are willing to take some risk now that the pandemic hasn’t turned out to be plague-levels of badness that some initially feared. few people are economically secure enough to say ‘no’ to opening back up sooner rather than later.
"many people are willing to take some risk now that the pandemic hasn’t turned out to be plague-levels of badness that some initially feared"
Without expressing an opinion of my own, how can you write as though from a twilight zone without causal relationships?
I mean, you, or anyone, can doubt that the lockdown is necessary. You might be right!
But you must acknowledge and challenge the causal connection between the lockdown and "not plague levels of badness". Comments that just ignore the possibility creep me out, because I can't imagine what the writer is thinking, except maybe "wishing will make it so".
