>>9856361now i'm pretty sure there's a problem with the infection models (they assume a very uncontrolled rate, which is borderline ridiculous, things don't remain exponential for that long). there's also a major problem with that the leading authorities on the disease that are being deferred to, people often forget have a very singleminded goal that is not the overall best goal: this means that, as far as a doctor on a covid-19 task force is concerned, if he prevents the pandemic by making everyone stay indoors for a year and crashes the economy, from his perspective he still accomplished his job of stopping the disease. a similar allegory is something i've described before: a system administrator tasked with security might be told to make a system secure, and he can do that by unplugging it and shutting it down forever or making it impossible for anyone to access it at all, and from his perspective, he accomplished his goal even if it was not a good solution in the bigger picture
compound that with people's moral "all life is precious" signaling, and the economy tanks as people begin to realize what the actual price of what's being proposed is (idc what portugal says, he is underestimating the quarantine effects or the effects of the proposals). state leadership either believes that same moral bullshit or is using this to destabilize trump's presidency by causing volatility. at the end of the day, it's looking like our country was generally unprepared for this problem and the current solutions are massively subpar and a less "safe" but more economically sound idea needs to be done, like telling at risk people to quarantine and letting the rest work. trump seems to understand that now after some indecision, but easter is still far too long from now to end the shutdowns
so basically it's
>virus is not a nothingburger>it's not "world-ending apocalypse" either>biggest problem is convincing people that the *entire economy* is worth a risk of some deaths 