Slasher, you just proved my point. The solutions you are offering are too simple and one dimensional with all respect.
Just one quick example.
Originally Posted by
Slasher1
FWIW, the states which opened first fared no worse (and to some extent better) than the shutdown states. So like the Hong Kong flu it didn't really make much difference in terms of 'science' but did in terms of economic destruction.
Let's for a moment assume your basic assumption was right and the states that opened earlier fared "better" ( which I also doubt, but for the sake of the argument).
It is obviously not feasible to compare states to each other by looking at just one variable ( time of opening). You are extremely underestimating the difficulty of the problem and the complexity of statistics.
Every state in the US has of course it's own characteristics, e.g. density, demographics, size, infection rates, public transport system, economic structure, geographical position, level of education, infrastructure etc etc.
Any statistically valid comparison need to be controlled for underlying variables. It is impossible to do such a comparison without specific expertise in a number of fields, e.g. economics, epidemiology etc. It makes no sense the way you put it.
I don't know much about the Hong Kong flu from 1967, or any other pandemic, but of course the virologist and epidemiologist have studied this and very other pandemic extensively. That is what they do, the very nature of their profession. Again, as a layman without any education or training in the field, none whatsoever, to boldly declare this is all " like 1967" is quite astonishing in my opinion.
But then you put science in brackets, which to me indicates we are not on the same page anyway. My suspicion is that in this case, as in many other areas of political disagreement, the differences have rather cultural/moral origins.