Of course, the reverse is true. If the economy is sufficiently damaged, health suffers. Is this a point of contention or not?
You can quibble over this if you want, but I seriously doubt he literally believes in 100% total eradication of the virus. I know of anyone either on this thread or elsewhere who believes that or assumes that’s the objective of a lock-down,.
Winning the internet aside, it’s really a non-issue.
Sorry if you thought I was disagreeing with you.
Nah, I figured not, but just wanted to make it clear I was agreeing with you. 
That is why I started this thread. It seems that most people who support the lock-downs want a general lock-down but I don’t think that’s warranted. At this point we appear to know who the highest-risk people are. We should be putting more effort into explicitly protecting them and less effort into general lock-downs.
You’re quibbling in it right now.
Others dealt with the health vs economy, but this is very ignorant:
Time for us to do a complete draconian lockdown nationwide. We need to give advance notice “August will be a month of utter and total lockdown,” give everyone a couple of weeks to stockpile the food they need.
Then for the whole month of August - nothing. Nobody emerges from homes, nothing. Nobody shops, nobody drives, nobody flies. Everyone cocoons indoors.
Doing so should kill off the Covid virus almost everywhere in the USA, assuming the virus cannot survive on surfaces or in air longer than a couple of weeks.
But the people that open up seem to want a general opening up, as well. No mask rules, just guidelines. No sensitivity to local conditions. No enforcement of social distancing.
Not everyone can store a month of food. That’s only one of the many unworkable problems with your plan.
You’re probably right which is why it’s important to have these conversations. We seem to have divided ourselves into two camps: lock everything down (see Velocity’s post above) or just ignore COVID-19.
I think we need something in the middle: lock down and protect the high-risk individuals, and then do all the things that protect each other but still allow people to live their lives (like wearing a mask).
Sure, but people can survive a week or two without food. And if not, give them 2-3 months’ notice instead of just a few weeks.
Uh, what? Are you trying for a Swiftian thing? Doesn’t feel like you are but intent is hard on the internet.
What about eliminating the highest risk activities? Loud bars. Music festivals. Church services of more than 500.
Also, is more locking down appropriate when the situation on the ground is a shitshow? Testing slow and not widely available. Accelerating rate of community spread.
People can’t AFFORD a month of food, and many don’t have room to store it. Do you really expect people to sit in their apartment for the last week of your month with literally nothing to give their children?
OK, I was admittedly a tad extreme or tongue-in-cheek, but I am entirely serious about a draconian national lockdown. We’ve gotten to a point where enough is enough - time to kill off this thing once and for all. Several million infected and well over 130,000 dead, and it will only get worse as the weather gets colder near year’s end. Time to solve it all in one fell swoop.
A month may be too long indoors, but we need, at the bare minimum, to lock down long enough to surpass the virus’ life expectancy (I don’t know how long it is on surfaces or indoors air, but it can’t be more than a couple of weeks, and in outdoors air, the sunlight would kill it.)
So maybe 3 weeks of everyone basically under something akin to house arrest (but not couched in such negative terms.) Uber food delivery is permissible, but the delivery driver must hand over food and scurry off at once. If someone can work remotely at home, great. Nobody goes shopping outdoors, nobody drives, nobody flies, no school, no work except for EMS, police and healthcare providers.
We need to “Wuhan” the entire nation.
Ok, let’s look at a less insane version of your proposal. Less insane means all the Hospital, Police and Firefighter staff still go to work. Do we set up catering or space for them to store their bag lunch? Are they allowed to live with their families?
Even if you could pull off a one-month lockdown in the U.S., the moment that people start to come in from other countries that didn’t do that lockdown, it all starts over again…only after the lockdown, I think you’d get even lower compliance with masks or social distancing than you have now. “We beat that thing! Back to normal!”
Who will enforce a nationwide lockdown, especially in rural areas? I don’t think there’s enough manpower in the whole military to cover the entire United States. And even then, that’s more people still outdoors that need to be fed and treated and resupplied.
And are you completely willing to give the current American president the power to do this? Speaking of the government, Republicans will certainly not be willing to give aid to anyone for that entire month. How much compliance do you expect when no one trusts the feds to keep the lights on?
True, but once the lockdown is over, probably 99% of Covid will have been killed off in America. At that point, we can go to a New Zealand approach where we essentially consider the nation to be virus-free internally, and then vigorously monitor and quarantine everyone coming in from abroad. We’d have to perform mandatory Covid testing on everyone landing in the US. And cut down on the amount of permitted flights.
You could probably cheer up Trump and get the GOP to go along by pointing out that they now suddenly have a real legit-sounding reason to clamp down on the Mexican border hard.