@bigato: I agree. I believe this is what most governments are planning to do anyway. The goal should be to protect the most vulnerable while affecting the economy as little as possible. Some quick wins that help with social distancing while not destroying the economy are:
- work from home: yes, your favorite coffee place might struggle if everyone does it and your company might realize it doesn't really need an office, which will, in turn, hurt the landlord and then those invested in REITs, however, the benefits are too great to not do it (less pollution, less traffic, more time for everyone, etc.). I expect that strong suggestion to work from home whenever possible will be in place until everyone is vaccinated
- large gatherings, like concerts or sports games in large areas: it's very hard to keep social distancing in those places; even if they plan to leave every second place empty, you also need the places right in front of you and right behind you empty to keep >1m distance between people. At this point, it's probably not even worth doing considering the costs of security, etc. Also, it will be a logistical nightmare to let people in and out while maintaining the distance. So that's another area I expect will keep shut for a long time, possibly until the vaccine
- pubs & night clubs: those are usually very crowded and also operate of a thin margin. Any measure of social distancing will make them unprofitable to run; I expect only some will reopen. To survive on drastically lower revenues, they'll need to reduce both variable (easy) and fixed (not so easy) costs
- more online learning: there's no reason why pupils and students in vulnerable groups would need to ever attend a class/lecture/exam in person - all of those can and should be done online. Again, until vaccine as you don't want to keep people inside forever as they'd miss out massive benefits of socialization with peers
- 'shielding' old and vulnerable people: providing them with food and essential items to allow them to self-isolate as much as possible; some will still probably live as normal but hopefully most will be smart enough to stay inside
There are also some 'quick fails' which don't really make much sense if we're in it for the long run:
- closing schools: children are the most resistant group to this virus (<17 constitute 0.04% of deaths) and keeping them at home hurts the economy badly due to parents not being able to work. Schools should be reopened as soon as possible and high-risk pupils should be given the option of online learning
- (almost) everyone below 45 (4.5% of deaths * 0.3% death rate = chance of dying of 1/7500 i.e. not worth worrying about); again with exception of vulnerable people
- shutting borders: unless you're SK, it doesn't make sense since the virus is endemic at this point
- all businesses able to adapt and operate while maintaining the required level of social distancing; i.e. what's the point of closing construction sites when there's very little close interaction? Shops can have limits as to how many customers can be inside at any given time, etc.
However, I don't quite like this one:
bigato wrote: ↑Sat Apr 25, 2020 9:02 pm
there's no reason to not make a rule of wearing masks in public if it's proven to be helpful enough
I think forcing people to wear anything on their body is going too far - precedents include WW2 Europe and Muslim countries. We don't want to go that route, even for 'the greater good'.
.
