To Open or Not to Open

As the President said in his briefing on Friday he faces the biggest decision of his presidency. (It's frankly one of the wisest statements he has made off the cuff.) Whether or not to open the country and try to restart the economy or to continue the lockdown and try to save lives from the virus.

I think this may be on Par with Abraham Lincoln's decsion when he tried to save the Union and keep the country together. I think President Trump does have a Lincoln type decsion to make. And this is a tough decision.

I want to ask others what would be your choice if you were president what would your decision be and why> each side I think has their own risk and pitfall. If you open the economy to ealry and virus comes back and infects more people and we have to go on lockdown once again it could have harsher ramifications for the economy. If we continue with the lockdown the food lines could get longer, panic and fear could increase. to be fair Americans have taken the lockdown in stride and have for the most part followed the guidelines. But if unemployment continues it's quite possible we could see civil unrest. I think this is a knife's edge decision that I am kind of glad I don;t have to make.

But again what say you ATS members we all have opinions but if you were in charge what would be your decision?

a reply to: American-philosopher

You don't stop taking the medicine until after it has worked.

a reply to: American-philosopher

Whether or not to open the country and try to restart the economy or to continue the lockdown and try to save lives from the virus.

I guess he can reopen the airports and allow international travel again. But Wall Street is in New York City and it's up to Mayor DeBlasio and Governor Cuomo to reopen non essential businesses and schools. It's the same with every other state, it's up to the Governors.

All Trump can really do is change his Presidential social distancing advisory.

There can be life without an economy.

There can be no economy without life.

Simple, but effective.

Really damned either way

a reply to: chr0naut
You summed it up nicely.

a reply to: chr0naut

What does that mean??

a reply to: Sookiechacha

I was under the impression he could do some executive orders. and we are still under National emergency, so doesnt that broaden the presidents powers?

originally posted by: American-philosopher
As the President said in his briefing on Friday he faces the biggest decision of his presidency. (It's frankly one of the wisest statements he has made off the cuff.) Whether or not to open the country and try to restart the economy or to continue the lockdown and try to save lives from the virus.

I think this may be on Par with Abraham Lincoln's decsion when he tried to save the Union and keep the country together. I think President Trump does have a Lincoln type decsion to make. And this is a tough decision.

I want to ask others what would be your choice if you were president what would your decision be and why> each side I think has their own risk and pitfall. If you open the economy to ealry and virus comes back and infects more people and we have to go on lockdown once again it could have harsher ramifications for the economy. If we continue with the lockdown the food lines could get longer, panic and fear could increase. to be fair Americans have taken the lockdown in stride and have for the most part followed the guidelines. But if unemployment continues it's quite possible we could see civil unrest. I think this is a knife's edge decision that I am kind of glad I don;t have to make.

But again what say you ATS members we all have opinions but if you were in charge what would be your decision?

Said it elsewhere 1st week of May states and areas with low totals back to work, with at-risk persons still isolated masks recommended. Hard hit areas May 15th limited back to work with mandatory distancing and masks other specifications as per the state's governor limited movement to and from infected cities areas. Revise and reassess weekly and daily if needed. That's 20 days from now should even have a better idea of the depth of the situation. But I'm on the herd immunity side the sooner we get people out there the earlier we get immunity as a whole and can effectively help those that do get sick as we move on

originally posted by: mikell
Really damned either way

That's a true statement

He hasn't locked the country down has he?
Thought the individual governors did that.

Should not open international travel. Should ban non-essential inter State travel
Each State, City could then make the decision based on their local ability.

With the insurance health system in the USA, there is going to be a massive bill for each state to treat covid-19 symptoms so why allow hospitals in 1 state cover the costs of people from different states and the freeloaders who aren't even tax payers.

The virus doesn't move we do - isolate and lock down each cluster. Ask for individual self isolation like Sweden and hope you don't get to many redneck, spring break, party freaks spreading it around.

Or
lift everything then let luck and money decide who lives and who dies over the next few years.

originally posted by: American-philosopher
a reply to: chr0naut

What does that mean??

If you can't grasp that statement you may need t o remove the 'philosopher' from your username.

I have a dreaded feeling that no matter what we do from here there has been irreparable damage done to our economies and way of life that things will never be the same again. Socially, economically, politically.

Even if every country started going back to work tomorrow.

originally posted by: American-philosopher
a reply to: chr0naut

What does that mean??

It means extended austerity and social distancing, which we will survive, rather than the exponentially increasing and fairly definite death rate of letting the virus run rampant. At this point in time, we have no better option. No cure or immunization (which are perhaps a year or so away).

Although it is a very worst case scenario, the virus, unchecked would eventually affect 80% of the population before herd immunity would come into play, which is 26.4 million people in the US. Currently the mortality rate in the US is 3.9 % of those identified as infected. This would mean the deaths of 1,029,600 people. The earning capability of those people represent a fairly large economic loss for the country of nearly 65 trillion dollars per annum (based upon average income figures). Of course these are all very rough and worst case figures but not that unreasonable.

So, if there is something that could save lives, it makes sense to pursue that rather than to let them die and also crash the already indebted economy.

originally posted by: Bhadhidar
There can be life without an economy.

There can be no economy without life.

Simple, but effective.

A struggling or declining economy can have an equal if not more than wuflu mortality rate.

a reply to: American-philosopher

I would say that any business that wants to re-open can provided that they provide PPE for their employees, keep social distancing measures in place where possible and limit customers allowed in their businesses- and also require customers to at least wear masks or some sort of facial covering. Employees who are concerned with lack of 6 feet of distance between employees and/or customers would still be able to collect unemployment until such time that official state of emergency is lifted but those who wish to work can. People considered "high risk" would be encouraged to stay home as much as possible and to wear masks when necessary to go out. Riding mass transit allowed as long as masks worn but with warning that it is at passengers own risk. Schools re-open as long as they are able to provide masks/gloves to students and all staff but NTI remaining available for those who would feel safer with kids at home until emergency status lifted.

Doesn't cover everything but I feel like it is a good compromise.

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: American-philosopher

You don't stop taking the medicine until after it has worked.

Do you take the medication until it kills you or ceases to allow you to function?

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: Bhadhidar
There can be life without an economy.

There can be no economy without life.

Simple, but effective.

A struggling or declining economy can have an equal if not more than wuflu mortality rate.

That is not correct. Many countries (eg Greece) in very recent history, have already gone through economic collapse and months of austerity. Millions didn't die.

Many enemies want the lockdowns to continue with stiffer restrictions.

The economy is already tanked but recoverable as long as the enemies don't set more traps. 😈

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: Bhadhidar
There can be life without an economy.

There can be no economy without life.

Simple, but effective.

A struggling or declining economy can have an equal if not more than wuflu mortality rate.

That is not correct. Many countries (eg Greece) in very recent history, have already gone through economic collapse and months of austerity. Millions didn't die.

Are you saying millions died in Greece?

It’s simple, if you are in the “high risk category” then stay isolated, if not, go about your lives
We are adults, we can make our own decisions, don’t need a government to tell us what to do
At this stage the severity of the flu has been established, be it our own decision from here on in