In response to the novel and deadly coronavirus, many governments deployed draconian tactics never used in modern times: severe and broad restrictions on daily activity that helped send the world into its deepest peacetime slump since the Great Depression.
The equivalent of 400 million jobs have been lost world-wide, 13 million in the U.S. alone. Global output is on track to fall 5% this year, far worse than during the financial crisis, according to the International Monetary Fund.
Despite this steep price, few policy makers felt they had a choice, seeing the economic crisis as a side effect of the health crisis. They ordered nonessential businesses closed and told people to stay home, all without the extensive analysis of benefits and risks that usually precedes a new medical treatment.
There wasn’t time to gather that sort of evidence: Faced with a poorly understood and rapidly spreading pathogen, they prioritized saving lives.
Five months later, the evidence suggests lockdowns were an overly blunt and economically costly tool. They are politically difficult to keep in place for long enough to stamp out the virus. The evidence also points to alternative strategies that could slow the spread of the epidemic at much less cost. As cases flare up throughout the U.S., some experts are urging policy makers to pursue these more targeted restrictions and interventions rather than another crippling round of lockdowns.
Two weeks to slow the spread — okay. Six months: No. We understood that in 1918, but I made a grave mistake in thinking that our public health people could be as sensible now as they were then.
Who are at risk?
Those of any age with certain health problems.
This is the set of people who must protect themselves.
If these people are too stupid to bother protecting themselves, then they deserve whatever happens to them.
The rest of society needs to get back to normal, or near normal.
Whatever we tried to do to mitigate the spread of the virus, the months of protests, riots and looting totally destroyed any benefit gained. So, open the economy up. Protect the elderly. The virus has already spread as much as it possibly can.
the Bee has offered a solution to the situation in an indirect manner:
AKRON, OH—Drivers who get their vehicles serviced at Goodyear will now only be able to get tires for one side of their cars. The company announced this week it will only be selling tires for the left side of cars that come into its shops for service.
The company acknowledged this may create an inconvenience for its customers, but has already begun the process of making the change in all of its locations around the country.
“Customers have lots of options for places to get tires for the other side of the car,” said Goodyear Chairman and CEO Rich Kramer. “It may not be popular, but we felt this was a stand we needed to take.”
The company’s exclusion applies to Service as well as Sales. Technicians may rotate the two tires on the driver’s side, but may not do any work on the other side of the vehicle.
“Often, the driver is the only passenger in the car, so tires on that side get a lot more wear,” Kramer clarified. “So focusing on those two just makes sense. By the way, we want to emphasize that this is not a political decision and that we are in no way giving special treatment to one side of the vehicle.”
Also, if you come in with four tires, Goodyear will scream and destroy your right-side tires, free of charge.
in a reality check- goodyear tire products and service vendors of parts and vehicle service have not done well