Posted on 05/08/2020 8:06:13 AM PDT by PhxRising
Who has the burden of proof regarding the economic lockdowns: Those who argue for continuing them or those who want to lift them?
The public health establishment, the mainstream media and most Democratic politicians assume that the burden of proof lies with the lockdown opponents. Advocates of reopening must show that any change to the current status quo will be “safe.” If the reopeners fail to make that showing, the lockdowns remain in place. With the burden of proof thus configured, proponents of continued economic stasis need not justify the “new normal”; moribund businesses and unemployed workers have become the default mode of social existence. A Tuesday news story in The New York Times exemplified this default thinking: “Public health experts ... have long warned that opening up shops and releasing citizens from their homes could be more difficult and dangerous than shutting them in,” the Times reported.
In litigation, allocation of the burden of proof often determines the outcome of a case. If the advocates of continued lockdown had that burden, they would have to answer the following questions, now kept off stage:
—What have the lockdowns accomplished so far and what will they accomplish in the future?
—What are the public health consequences of a global depression?
—Do the benefits of keeping people from working outweigh the costs in lost and stunted lives?
—How will herd immunity be achieved under lockdown conditions?
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
Yes but people are not rational any more.
And calling on the Federal government to pay for their lockdowns
Red states open and blue states locked down will demonstrate for all which is the better way.
The point of the lockdowns was to buy time for healthcare providers to reorganize and prepare to treat, get the necessary equipment which was sorely lacking (thanks to decisions made by the Obama/Biden administration and Dem administrations in large states like CA and NY to prepare for these situations, and CA’s case, destroy their own preparations), learn new treatments, etc., and flatten the curve so it did not spiral completely out of control and cause a total collapse in the system. That has now been achieved - the lockdowns do not need to continue in their previous form. Businesses can adapt to social distancing guidelines and still be fully functional (clients waiting in the car instead of in a common waiting area, for example). Some governors just don’t want to let go.
The red states are also better prepared and better managed to deal with these things to begin with.
It is apparent that Karens are running the world
Exactly.
Not to be argumentative, but how are customers going to wait in their cars in Arizona when it’s over 100 degrees outside. Keep their cars and AC running?
How are restaurants and health clubs going to survive half full? Nightclubs and bars with social distancing?
I think we’re rapidly approaching the point where we have to return to normal with only at risk people taking measures to protect themselves.
With continued lockdown, people can’t work, businesses & some industries go under, many will move away to other states & after that....well, you essentially no longer have a state. What then did all that lockdown accomplish?
Your point is not without merit. Obviously some adaptations are easier than others. My point is that their excuse to keep everything completely closed even not allowing those adaptations are meritless - Newsome’s argument for keeping nail salons closed indefinitely is an example.
Many restaurants are thriving with their curbside orders and deliveries - some of them having to stop orders after a certain point as they are not able to keep up with the demand.
“My point is that their excuse to keep everything completely closed even not allowing those adaptations are meritless...”
Agreed. We should have gone down the road of mitigation without elimination from the get go. It’s going to be tougher as temperatures rise though.
And it sound be hurting here too. But likely not as much, without having relinquished civil rights and living under the boot of draconian regulations.
GDP down about the same as everywhere else locked down.
It’s in the article.
As it turns out, your ‘at risk’ groups that are socially distancing themselves are also your big earners/spenders.
Those 25yr olds that are supposed to be running things because they’re not at risk? Aren’t the ones really running things, that’s the 50yr olds. They also don’t have the money to keep the economy afloat.
Can’t read the whole thing. Not going to sign up. Let’s see how many business fold here versus Sweden per capita.
And at least they still could go to church.
I wouldn’t call 50 years olds at risk. Try 70 and older.
In my state, the 50-59yr old demographic has a 1 in 7 chance of extended hospital stay.
No thanks.
We know an early 30something who had this. Perfectly healthy before, permanent kidney damage now.
Ditto, no thanks.
Death isn’t the only ‘outcome’ for this virus. it isn’t a binary ‘live/die’. Some of us can’t afford a million dollar hospital visit. And aren’t hep on permanent organ damage either.
Swedes aren’t big on church. I’m sure that wasn’t even a consideration there.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.