Not only can they both be right but there doesn’t need to be just one Aristotelian choice. And it absolutely should not be a partisan shibboleth. In his piece at Atlantic Conor Friederdorf expresses my view pretty succinctly:
If we knew that a broadly effective COVID-19 treatment was imminent, or that a working vaccine was months away, minimizing infections through social distancing until that moment would be the right course. At the other extreme, if we will never have an effective treatment or vaccine and most everyone will get infected eventually, then the costs of social distancing are untenable. We don’t know where we sit on that spectrum. So we cannot know what the best way forward is even if we place the highest possible value on preserving life and protecting the vulnerable.
That uncertainty means, at the very least, that Americans should carefully consider the potential costs of prolonged shutdowns lest they cause more deaths or harm to the vulnerable than they spare.
Furthermore, it does not necessarily follow that simply because a lockdown may have been effective in stemming the spread of the virus somewhere it is necessarily effective anywhere. There are too many differences in the methods of implementation, the compliance of the people in any given area, and the circumstances to make a blanket statement.
The collateral damage done by the extreme COVID lockdowns will be far greater than the medical repercussions created by the virus itself.
I think that is pretty much where I have been, but erring on the side of protecting lives. We had not dealt with Covid before, but we had experience with other respiratory diseases, so it made sense to me to try those methods to avoid crushing the medical system. We have largely done that and we have known all along we can lockdown for a prolonged period. So now we just need to decide how, when and where to open back up. I have been avoiding criticism of individual governors and/or mayors as this is a judgment call.
That said, my bet is that people dont come rushing back to work and public life. Just as was recounted yesterday that the lockdowns mostly ratified what people were already doing I dont think people will blindly follow re-opening rules either. (There will be a group at either end of the spectrum that will behave extremely, as always, but most people will be cautious.) I would watch the airlines, hotel and restaurant industries to gauge how people are returning to normal. What we are seeing is that people are reluctant to return to the hospital for surgeries and other procedures. No idea how long it takes to get to normal.
Steve
That will be a lagging indicator rather than a leading one.
Keep an eye on the bars.
The medical establishment never said the lockdowns would reduce the total number of deaths. That ultimately depends on the number of susceptibles in the population, which is a genetic matter. The lockdowns merely spreads the pandemic out in time. Coming out of lockdown early will not increase the number of deaths, it will merely bring them forward in time.
The other issue about lockdowns is public transit. A serious lockdown, or even one that is merely consistent with the theory, would include public transit. New York City’s disaster was due in part to population density, and keeping the subways open was and is a major contributor, because of the very high density in the cars and platforms.
The lockdowns are doing real economic damage. Neiman Marcus and J. Crew have filed for bankruptcy. Lennox (which makes tableware) is permanently closing its American plant and will contract with others to make its plates, etc.
That’s certainly been my view.