That's another issue, as mentioned. But is a political one. We have sheltered in place for 6 weeks which is what the medical experts have recommended.
I agree, and I think the past 6 weeks have given us time for that prep. San Antonio has issued citations for such violations. Mostly to businesses. But the mayor has said a few citations have been issued to private citizens as well. If the leaders of certain localities don't do their jobs, they should not be re-elected. I know Wal-Marts (or any grocery store) here won't even let you in the store without a face covering, I was just there today for the first time in over a month and could not believe the difference a month makes. EVERYONE had a mask and many had gloves.
Again, the car analogy applies. There will be certain members of the population who refuse to take any precautions. Think seat belts. Some people refuse to wear them. No amount of punitive action is going to change that. Focusing on those few individuals will not produce any policy that will change their behavior. Unless you are talking about killing them. But I doubt that.
I hope you are right and that you guys are at least flat lining. California is a huge state and I'd bet certain areas are going to do better than others. Texas' rural areas are barely feeling any effects at all, except for the economic ones.
Then you are only looking at it from one perspective. That of what is best, in a perfect world, from the guidance of the health care experts. If that were the case, I would agree with you wholeheartedly. We should all stay at home and live off our wealth. Government wouldn't have to hemorrhage money, under capitalized businesses both big and small would fail, and we could wait this thing out. We don't exist in that perfect world and many other factors have to be considered beyond what would save the most lives. I only mentioned the study because no matter the number, there is a correlation, between unemployment and added deaths. It was supporting my point (again no matter what number, unless your position is you doubt its validity at all and that there is no correlation) that we are trading one method of mortality for another. I was discussing honestly/earnestly enough to admit that the numbers of that study 37,000 have been looked at since then in other examinations who say the number is between 1500 and 37,000. I didn't use it as a "gotcha." I do remember it from "The Big Short" though I don't remember that line in Michael Lewis' book. Which is why I looked it up to see if I was passing bad information.
I have also heard all of that, and agree with them. But those are not the only issues as mentioned above. If you aren't able to place yourself in the position of others and, at least entertain, that the cure might be worse than the infection we have a different problem all together. Which is becoming pervasive in this country on both sides of the aisle. A lack of empathy and reason.
Ugh, that was flirting dangerously close to quoting Trump. But unlike many, I can admit when the other side
might have the right idea. We have gone through pandemics before, but this is the first time a full lockdown has been utilized. We won't know what the 100% best course of action would have been, could have been, or should have been for many years. Which is why I emphasize
might above.