Hmm...I've been reading a lot about COVID-19, and I've been listening to a lot of doctors with expertise on infectious diseases, and I am convinced that a lot of the measures taken are going overboard. People keep pointing to Italy and saying, "Look! That'll be us in 10 days!" but they seem to be forgetting about South Korea. South Korea's first confirmed case was around the same time as Italy's, and yet they've only had 56 deaths in Korea, not 1000+ like in Italy.

South Korea's COVID-19 mortality rate is, at current best estimates, about 0.6% on the upper end. With normal flu being about .1%. Scientists are still looking into why there is such a disparity between Italy and Korea. Given the current trends in America, there's no reason to think that we won't be more like Korea and less like Italy in severity. I mean at this point, we just don't know exactly what will happen, but I think it's lunacy to close all the schools in a state, when there are less than 10 confirmed cases of a disease in said state. Like in my state, our schools will be closed this entire week, yet we're in single digits of cases. It just doesn't make sense. At some point life has to go on. Nothing will change by next week. Given the numbers in SD for instance, it's entirely possible that not a single person has COVID in my child's school, and yet all the kids will be home. Parents still work, so it may very well be the vulnerable grandparents looking after the kids!

It makes far more sense, to me, for everyone to practice sensible social-distancing (no handshakes or hugs, extra hand-washing, no face-touching), and for vulnerable individuals and individuals with symptoms to self-isolate, than for everyone to never go out again. It's not a nice thing for all the vulnerable people to have to isolate, but it makes more sense than having everyone including them isolate. The economy is grinding to a halt over something that is essentially a bad flu. We are 12 months at best from a vaccine, and more likely 18+ months, according to every knowledgeable doctor I've heard. Anti-virals could come sooner, and I think people are mixing up the two. COVID is related to other corona viruses like the common cold, and so because of that, we all ready potentially have some drugs that may work to weaken the virus and reduce symptoms. And so, within weeks we may have some anti-virals, but make no mistake it will be a year or more for a vaccine, and like I said, at some point life must go on. Yes, there will be more cases, and potentially more deaths, with what I suggest. But there would also be fewer deaths if no one ever drove a car, but at some point you have to balance risk vs. reward. And in states like mine, with single-digit cases. What's the reward for closing the schools for a week (let alone 6 or more)? We don't have a curve to flatten. And how many businesses are going to be ruined and how many families hurt by no one going out?

Okay, sorry for the wall of text!

It depends on where you live. We've got less than 10 confirmed cases in South Dakota. Yet all schools, public events, churches, universities, and athletic clubs are closed down. And many businesses are shuttered too. For less than 10 cases! We have no curve here to flatten. Yes, eventually cases will increase, but sensible measures can slow growth. We don't need to go full "Contagion" lock-down for this. At least not yet, and at least not here.

Why do people seem to think the only options are licking doorknobs or wearing a hazmat suit? There are measures inbetween those two extremes that can be taken. Also, just because someone thinks the COVID-19 response doesn't match the threat, doesn't mean that they're an idiot with their head in the sand. And don't hide behind the fact that cities and states have mandated shutdowns. If anyone here has actually attended city-council meetings, or watched the kind of laws that come out of state houses, then they'd know that plenty of reactionary and poorly thought-out decisions come from local and state governments.

Our response should match the threat, and in many regions of the US, the threat is very low. Reducing interstate travel (except for commercial trucking), would seem to be a smart move to reduce the spread. Not trapping people in their homes, damaging small businesses, and causing severe financial distress, for the sake of single digit cases (in many states). But that's just my opinion! Last time I checked we're all still allowed to have those, right?

Yes, precautions must be taken. But appropriate precautions. The response should match the threat. I've never suggested doing nothing, quite the opposite. I think common sense measures like social-distancing should be taken, and quarantine and cordons applied where necessary. I think closing down schools and businesses causes a whole host of additional problems. And you can reach a situation where the cure is a bad as the disease, no pun intended. Ask any administrator of a large school, and they'll tell you that the school can end up being the only safe space a child has, and the only place they get nutritious meals. The financial burden on business owners and employees in this COVID-19 crisis goes without saying.

In a lot of cases, I think the closings are more so that governments and companies can be seen as "doing something." Rather than because the evidence supports the closings. For instance, I think it makes little sense to close schools in NW South Dakota, when we've only had a handful of confirmed cases in SE South Dakota (300+ miles away). But it is what it is. I don't make the rules, I just have to follow them. The Governor of my state says the schools are closed, then it's up to me to figure out childcare. No amount of complaining will change the situation.

Ah well, I don't hold it against anyone if they think we should be going farther, neither do I hold it against anyone who thinks we've gone too far.

Not unless they lower the cost of your rent/lease. Which theoretically, if this COVID thing goes on long enough, retail/commercial space won't be as profitable as it once was pretty much across the board, and so real estate and land values would also have to decrease. And cheaper real estate should mean a cheaper lease/mortgage. But who knows what's really gonna happen.