
Anthony Fauci says staying closed too long could cause irreparable damage - mrfusion
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/22/dr-anthony-fauci-says-staying-closed-for-too-long-could-cause-irreparable-damage.html
======
brandon272
> However, Fauci also cautioned states against reducing social distancing
> measures too quickly, adding they must take “very significant precautions.”

It seems rather obvious that we can certainly "reopen" wide swaths of the
economy very quickly if "significant precautions" are taken. The question is,
what qualifies as "significant precautions", and how willing are people to
implement and deal with those precautions?

I ask because I see simple things like mask wearing to be something that a lot
of people seem to have a big problem with, whereas it seems to be something
that confers clear benefits while having very little downside aside from some
minor discomfort for some people.

If we can't do the little stuff, how are we supposed to do the "significant
stuff"?

The approach a lot of places seem to be taking is to forgo "significant
precautions" and simply approach reopening as something where, as long as you
do it slow enough in a phased approach, maybe things will just turn out fine.
As if the virus can be tricked if we're sneaky enough about returning to
normal.

~~~
true_religion
I am curious. Where is everyone getting their masks from? I have had a mask on
order via am amazon for almost a month now, and it will only be delivered in
June.

Is there a faster way?

~~~
thehoff
I ordered a few from Etsy. Took about a week or so to arrive. But this was
before it was advised that everyone wear them so maybe wait times are now
longer?

I’ve also seen signs that some dry cleaning places are carrying them.

Sports online stores (Fans Edge) also selling sports ones.

------
tick_tock_tick
I think a lot of the Hacker News audience is pretty insulated from the
economic repercussions of the lockdown. At this point I believe the long term
consequences of continuing a lockdown are worse. At least most places seem
ready to move and start opening up sooner than later.

Sadly this whole things has turned politically too so now SF is going to stay
closed as long as possible and really screw over any small business. I'm
really not looking forward to the number of bar and restaurant closures in the
next 6 months.

~~~
gridlockd
When there's no cost to denying others their freedom for "the greater good",
then I can just do it all day long _and_ feel good about myself.

Disagree with me, and I'll get to call you all sorts of bad things.

How can I lose?

------
gnusty_gnurc
It's clear that whether we like it or not, we need to reopen. Lockdown is a
luxury that only rich nations can afford to try - and it's not clear that it's
having an appreciable affect beyond proper social distancing and widespread
mask wearing.

------
casefields
I've got to imagine they are getting a ton a disparate data, and it's ugly.
Fauci-for better or worse—is truly the face of this COVID-19 action taken.

Hoover did a ton to stave off the Great Depression, yet it still wasn't
enough. Hoovervilles stuck to him even to this day:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hooverville](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hooverville)

~~~
adventured
And he saved more lives than anyone else in history, via his food relief
initiatives. 10 million people in France and Belgium alone. Another 10 to 20
million in Russia. He's largely the reason the US commonly represents half of
all global food aid to this day.

[https://www.cornellcollege.edu/history/courses/stewart/his26...](https://www.cornellcollege.edu/history/courses/stewart/his260-3-2006/01%20one/befr.htm)

~~~
gridlockd
> And he saved more lives than anyone else in history...

I beg to differ:

[http://www.scienceheroes.com/index.php?option=com_content&vi...](http://www.scienceheroes.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=258&Itemid=27)

------
ohiovr
Hospital and clinic here have fewer emergencies, there are fewer sirens going
on, the graphs show infections have not really changed. You can't throw 16% of
my towns buisness into bankruptsy for this flimsy reason anymore.

fewer than last year I mean. There is nothing wrong in the town.

------
wallacoloo
Irreparable damage to what? To returns on capital? To societal structures? To
mental health? Worthless article with zero details.

~~~
bmarquez
I was looking for clarity too in the article. The CNBC video is a bit more
clear:

"We can't stay locked down for such a considerable time that we have
irreparable damage and create unintended consequences, including consequences
for health" \- Fauci

------
frgtpsswrdlame
We should listen to Fauci in his field of expertise: people's health. Not sure
why we should care about this statement of his.

~~~
markkanof
Well this really is still a health related message. I think it's obvious to
pretty much everyone that it's really not economically feasible to stay locked
down forever. So he is saying that, given that we do need to reopen, it should
be safe if we take significant precautions when doing so.

~~~
jchook
If we can actually "re-open America" without significantly increasing the
spread of COVID-19, that will make the lockdown look like a major over-
reaction.

On the other hand, if we re-open and then see a return to doubling the number
of cases every 3-4 days... what then? Will people go back on lockdown?

~~~
wallacoloo
> Will people go back on lockdown?

It depends. People with the means to do so will weigh the consequences and
decide for themselves. Like, I’ll be limiting my physical contact with my
parents and aunts/uncles for quite a few more months whichever way this goes,
I expect. I’ll probably not be eating at restaurants, though I may partake in
dinner parties with very close friends instead. Voluntary social distancing
but not as strictly as the lockdown.

Generally, if we can put the right structures in place to give everyone the
ability to reduce their exposure at their choice, a lockdown isn’t necessary.
Seriously: if you and anyone you care about _could_ live decently without
human contact, then we wouldn’t need to force a lockdown on anybody else.

We’ll never get there fully — humans are social animals and many will weigh
the value seeing a select group of family/friends regularly greater than the
risk of disease. But there’s so much room for decreasing R _without_ lockdown
(I.e. in a non-compulsory way) that we haven’t explored yet. Obvious ones
include some form of UBI so that people aren’t _forced_ into high-risk jobs.
Or subsidies to organizations based on how much they decrease transmission
associated with their practices (e.g. curbside pickup for retail, sanitizing
warehouse/store surfaces and testing employees regularly, subsidizing safer
local transit (biking, scooters — just not busses), etc).

I think one of our larger mistakes in handling this is embracing mandatory
lockdown as the be-all end-all solution. It’s _not_ a long-term solution. It
risks building serious animosity among the classes of people who feel deprived
from opportunity as a result of it, and generally there’s no telling what
compliance will look like after 4 months, 6 months, or a reopening followed by
another lockdown. We have to find ways of reducing the lockdown while
replacing its benefits with other tools that have fewer negative impacts on
society.

~~~
jchook
> Voluntary social distancing but not as strictly as the lockdown

Doesn't this ignore the idea of viral spread? I mean, the nurses of the
elderly come home to their "voluntary" lockdown, and the young mailmail
delivers mail to boomer parents. Many people carry and spread the disease
without knowing they have it.

