Just about all areas are in the process of opening up. The trick now is to set up sufficient rules to keep us out of trouble in the future, while letting most activity continue.
The key thing is that rules have to be proportionate and consistent. A large part of the problem is when there is a total lack of consistency. As I've said before I really need a new pair of sneakers. Apparently it's far too dangerous for me to go to the local shoe store, where I can try on shoes at my leisure and probably not come within 20 feet of anyone else except when it's time to pay, but at the same time it's apparently safe for me to go to Walmart with everyone else.
It's a bit odd that the war would happen at the point where opening is already happening. I can't help wondering whether we have some politicians that want to get credit for pressuring governors to open when it was happening anyway.
Opening is happening in some areas but if you've been without a paycheck for eight weeks, have been trying to feed your family using whatever's left of your credit line knowing that credit line is going to cost you 20% interest or more until you pay it off, which you'll struggle to do, there's no sign of your area reopening for no apparent reason, and the fuhrer is calling you and people like you cowardly for wanting nothing more selfish and cowardly than to feed your family, it's easy to see the potential for serious civil unrest. Seriously, I'm surprised we haven't already seen civil unrest.
You're almost certainly right that people want to take credit for things. It seems to be that both sides of the political aisle are as bad as each other there - Democrat governors seem quite happy with flouting federal law in setting up sanctuary cities while being unhappy when counties flout their executive orders to reopen, while Republicans seem happy to flout a Democrat governor's orders while being unhappy about the flouting of federal law involved in sanctuary cities. I guess it's just human nature - we want the credit for the good stuff without the blame for the bad stuff.
There's another concern. IHME is now showing mobility. That's based on things like cell phone data. In most cases travel was already stopping before stay at home orders were issued. The economy would have been in trouble even without orders. That means that removing them won't get it back to normal. One thing governors need to do is reopen with sufficient precautions that people feel safe in using all those businesses that have reopened. At this point, building confidence is more important than removing regulations.
This is certainly a very serious point, and I think it supports the case for opening earlier rather than later. The fact that people are allowed to do something doesn't mean they are required to do it. People who feel unsafe, for whatever reason or no reason, will still be welcome to stay home and isolate themselves if they consider it wise. The fact we are allowed to go for a dine-in meal at a restaurant doesn't obligate anyone to do it, and if people regard everyone else as a long range deadly threat they are less likely to gather in places like stadiums, pubs, restaurants etc.
A major problem the economy will have is the way the media is hyping the virus on a daily basis. When the constant talk is of people "risking their lives for a haircut" all it does is stoke fear. People were risking their lives for a haircut before the virus - driving to the salon is not a risk-free activity - but deaths and injuries on the roads are more or less accepted as the price we pay for free movement.
The simple reality is that life comes with risk. Freedom comes with risk. My freedom to ride my mountain bike down a steep rocky trail implies the risk of coming off my bike at speed. The freedom to drive to the store implies the risk of a motor accident along the way. The freedom to go for a drive just for the pleasure of the drive implies, to use the parlance beloved by the media lately, the freedom to risk my life and the lives of others purely for my own pleasure. Going back to the difference between permission and mandate, the people who are comfortable with a higher level of risk will do things like mountain biking and bungee jumping. People who are unhappy with any level of risk are free to lock the doors and hide under the bed.
Here's a NY Times article on the topic:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/07/upshot/pandemic-economy-government-orders.html. The title is "Government Orders Alone Didn’t Close the Economy. They Probably Can’t Reopen It." It's worth reading. There's lots of interesting data there.
I'll need to read that later so I can take in the data, although the headline makes the same (valid) point you made earlier.
The big problem now is going to be schools. I think we'll be OK during the summer. While IHME's projections have been a bit optimistic in the past, I'm inclined to accept the current versions, which show things slowly getting better. By the end of June all businesses will be open but with additional precautions, and I think it will be OK. But evidence now suggests that while kids don't commonly get seriously ill, they still get the virus and can spread it. Schools are the kind of close environment where it's going to spread easily.
This comes back to the point in the article from The Atlantic I posted earlier - eliminating risk is unrealistic so the best course of action is to understand it and mitigate it to an appropriate level, based on individual circumstance. A child in school who is being raised by grandparents in poor health may need to learn remotely a while longer, while a child raised by healthy parents who never interacts closely with older people doesn't need anywhere near as many precautions.
www.nytimes.com
