[Genuine Realist]

Ironic. This goes straight to the experts who pointed out, early in the game, that if social distancing (or SIP) works it will generate critics who will cite its success to prove it was in excess. I read that in March, and here it is playing out on this thread.

Not sure if this goes in the (gallows) humor thread or here, but right to your point:
[tweet]https://twitter.com/SaskiaPopescu/status/1264358363074146304?s=20[/tweet]

I don't believe in hindsight. The epidemiological model was almost universally accepted in mid-March, when SIP was promulgated. It likely did save lives, and performed a valuable service in public education. I"m not going to go back in time and question the lifeboat decision.

However, ten weeks have passed and we have actual, not theoretical, data points. In terms of making forward-going policy, the question of whether measures as extreme as SIP were necessary is natural in terms of what we do next. There are the examples of Sweden. Japan, and the two States Georgia and Florida, that did not go to those extremes, and have had experience that is in roughly the same ball park as those that did. That raises some natural issues. 

My own thought is that the education of the public has been pretty thorough. We will always have dissenters and oppositionists. That's the nature of American society and - in better times - one of its strengths. I think it's time to abandon the more drastic, draconian measures that have been in place, and open up completely, with a regulatory framework, e.g., masks required in indoor environments, six feet distancing in public places, and so on. I don't think we're going to get any more compliance than we already have. 

In case I'm not being clear, I consider the pushback of the 'don't-tread-on-me' element of American society as valuable, even if I don't agree with it entirely and its emphasis may be misguided. It leads to a constant review of conventional wisdom that is necessary and useful.

[Genuine Realist]

Ironic. This goes straight to the experts who pointed out, early in the game, that if social distancing (or SIP) works it will generate critics who will cite its success to prove it was in excess. I read that in March, and here it is playing out on this thread.

Not sure if this goes in the (gallows) humor thread or here, but right to your point:
[tweet]https://twitter.com/SaskiaPopescu/status/1264358363074146304?s=20[/tweet]

I don't believe in hindsight. The epidemiological model was almost universally accepted in mid-March, when SIP was promulgated. It likely did save lives, and performed a valuable service in public education. I"m not going to go back in time and question the lifeboat decision.

However, ten weeks have passed and we have actual, not theoretical, data points. In terms of making forward-going policy, the question of whether measures as extreme as SIP were necessary is natural in terms of what we do next. There are the examples of Sweden. Japan, and the two States Georgia and Florida, that did not go to those extremes, and have had experience that is in roughly the same ball park as those that did. That raises some natural issues. 

My own thought is that the education of the public has been pretty thorough. We will always have dissenters and oppositionists. That's the nature of American society and - in better times - one of its strengths. I think it's time to abandon the more drastic, draconian measures that have been in place, and open up completely, with a regulatory framework, e.g., masks required in indoor environments, six feet distancing in public places, and so on. I don't think we're going to get any more compliance than we already have. 

In case I'm not being clear, I consider the pushback of the 'don't-tread-on-me' element of American society as valuable, even if I don't agree with it entirely and its emphasis may be misguided. It leads to a constant review of conventional wisdom that is necessary and useful.