https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/10/...te=1&user_id=a37f734911fee2041220fd4105594734
At this stage, these are policy discussion points, not formally recommended policy. I’m neither touting nor doubting them but merely presenting them without comment for discussion.
What the piece illustrates is a version of the multifaceted RISK MANAGEMENT approach we will necessarily be adopting to reopen society. Whether or not these particular ideas are adopted, there will need to be a plan.
Because this won't be about flipping a switch.
Without attribution to any of the discussion’s participants, here's some of what emerged:
· Institute a national stay-at-home policy through mid-May. During this period, massively ramp up testing, determine the rate of infection among the population, isolate the infected and provide alerts to the population on the whereabouts of the virus.
· If these efforts are successful – BUT ONLY IF THEY’RE SUCCESSFUL – begin easing restrictions in June. If efforts are unsuccessful, then restrictions remain in place until a later date.
· Rethink how we manage risk.
· Restart the economy IN STAGES.
· Larger gatherings – concerts, conferences and sporting events – should be the last to return. “Realistically we’re talking fall 2021 at the earliest.”
· Possibly reopen restaurants, using table spacing, sooner.
· Recognize that if things reopen, the case rate could rise, requiring a re-imposition of shelter-in-place strictures.
· If life in general and the economy in particular don’t return to normal in 18 months, consider factors OTHER THAN THE SOLE OBJECTIVE OF PREVENTING DEATHS. (I hope there’s a moral philosopher or two in the house to tackle that one.)
· In other words, is there some “acceptable” death total in exchange for reopening the economy? Because when the economy opens, SOME WILL DIE AS A CONSEQUENCE. Even as some will die as a result of it staying closed.
· “I think the assumption . . . that we have to do everything to reduce the number of deaths is not really the right assumption.”
· It’s clear that the poor tend to die at a greater rate in these situations.
· Whole swaths of employment are being wiped out by the shutdown.
· Not everyone will experience the recovery evenly.
· Schools cannot be reopened without the buy-in of students, parents, teachers, faculties, administrators and all of the various groups employed by the education industry.
· In the interest of tracking the disease, those not infected may wind up with an electronic immunity passport.
· “The kind of shift to reopening we’re talking about can happen only once we have a lot of other infrastructure that makes the public-health side of the equation work well.”
There’s quite a bit more to the piece, but I’ll stop here. It should be pretty clear that this will be a massive undertaking and that nothing is guaranteed.
At this stage, these are policy discussion points, not formally recommended policy. I’m neither touting nor doubting them but merely presenting them without comment for discussion.
What the piece illustrates is a version of the multifaceted RISK MANAGEMENT approach we will necessarily be adopting to reopen society. Whether or not these particular ideas are adopted, there will need to be a plan.
Because this won't be about flipping a switch.
Without attribution to any of the discussion’s participants, here's some of what emerged:
· Institute a national stay-at-home policy through mid-May. During this period, massively ramp up testing, determine the rate of infection among the population, isolate the infected and provide alerts to the population on the whereabouts of the virus.
· If these efforts are successful – BUT ONLY IF THEY’RE SUCCESSFUL – begin easing restrictions in June. If efforts are unsuccessful, then restrictions remain in place until a later date.
· Rethink how we manage risk.
· Restart the economy IN STAGES.
· Larger gatherings – concerts, conferences and sporting events – should be the last to return. “Realistically we’re talking fall 2021 at the earliest.”
· Possibly reopen restaurants, using table spacing, sooner.
· Recognize that if things reopen, the case rate could rise, requiring a re-imposition of shelter-in-place strictures.
· If life in general and the economy in particular don’t return to normal in 18 months, consider factors OTHER THAN THE SOLE OBJECTIVE OF PREVENTING DEATHS. (I hope there’s a moral philosopher or two in the house to tackle that one.)
· In other words, is there some “acceptable” death total in exchange for reopening the economy? Because when the economy opens, SOME WILL DIE AS A CONSEQUENCE. Even as some will die as a result of it staying closed.
· “I think the assumption . . . that we have to do everything to reduce the number of deaths is not really the right assumption.”
· It’s clear that the poor tend to die at a greater rate in these situations.
· Whole swaths of employment are being wiped out by the shutdown.
· Not everyone will experience the recovery evenly.
· Schools cannot be reopened without the buy-in of students, parents, teachers, faculties, administrators and all of the various groups employed by the education industry.
· In the interest of tracking the disease, those not infected may wind up with an electronic immunity passport.
· “The kind of shift to reopening we’re talking about can happen only once we have a lot of other infrastructure that makes the public-health side of the equation work well.”
There’s quite a bit more to the piece, but I’ll stop here. It should be pretty clear that this will be a massive undertaking and that nothing is guaranteed.
Last edited: