[teejers1]

Moreover, we don't know who, if anyone, Miller infected or who else might have been infected in the party Miller hosted.  Let's say Miller got sick during the party he hosted, and one of his other friends also got sick.  The friend goes home, gets his girlfriend sick, and the girlfriend who cares for his elderly grandmother gets grandma sick.  If grandma dies, is there no harm in Miller contracting the disease?

BC

Yeah, waiting for that predictable (and valid) hypothetical.  (And it was Prescott, not Miller, who allegedly hosted a party).

But here's the deal:  there is ALWAYS going to be risk when we "open up," no matter how much (or little) the dial is turned.  That is a given.  So unless you think we are all going to remain on lockdown until a vaccine is found, then you're going to have to accept some increased risk and the negatives that come with that.

And recall, the whole point of lockdown was to save our hospitals from getting overrun - which supposedly would have its own disastrous economic consequences (in addition to increased deaths).  So it all comes back to that, for me, anyway, when it comes to loosening the reins.  How is Area X doing capacity-wise; how reasonable is the proposed activity (i.e., how likely is it to lead to wildfire run on hospitals?).

That's it.

If the goal and intent is to prevent any "grandmas" from dying . . . well, we might as well all go home.  And stay there.  We can all peek outside again after  vaccine is developed.

[teejers1]

Moreover, we don't know who, if anyone, Miller infected or who else might have been infected in the party Miller hosted.  Let's say Miller got sick during the party he hosted, and one of his other friends also got sick.  The friend goes home, gets his girlfriend sick, and the girlfriend who cares for his elderly grandmother gets grandma sick.  If grandma dies, is there no harm in Miller contracting the disease?

BC

Yeah, waiting for that predictable (and valid) hypothetical.  (And it was Prescott, not Miller, who allegedly hosted a party).

But here's the deal:  there is ALWAYS going to be risk when we "open up," no matter how much (or little) the dial is turned.  That is a given.  So unless you think we are all going to remain on lockdown until a vaccine is found, then you're going to have to accept some increased risk and the negatives that come with that.

And recall, the whole point of lockdown was to save our hospitals from getting overrun - which supposedly would have its own disastrous economic consequences (in addition to increased deaths).  So it all comes back to that, for me, anyway, when it comes to loosening the reins.  How is Area X doing capacity-wise; how reasonable is the proposed activity (i.e., how likely is it to lead to wildfire run on hospitals?).

That's it.

If the goal and intent is to prevent any "grandmas" from dying . . . well, we might as well all go home.  And stay there.  We can all peek outside again after  vaccine is developed.